'f. 


ml   % 


Nei7-Enp:la,ndl  sm 
not 
the  Religion  of  the 
Bible 


-'diUt^^.  ^'^^,  ^m. .  uu  ij.  /^dn). 


— ^ 


NEW-ENGLANDISM 


NOT 

\ 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  BIBLE : 


BEING 


AN  EXAMINATION 


OF 


A  REVIEW  OF  BISHOP  BROWNELL'S  FOURTH  CHARGE 

TO  HIS  CLERGY,  IN  THE  NEW  ENGLANDER 

FOR  JANUARY,  1844. 


The  distinctive  religion  of  New  England." 

New  Englander,  II.  141 


HARTFORD. 

HENRY    S.  PARSONS 

1844. 


FRED  LOCKLEY 

RARE  WESTERN  BOOKS 

4227  S.  E.  Stark  St. 
PORTLAND.  ORE. 


Bxsq-^E 


/ 


NEW-ENGLANDISM 


THE  RELKIIOI  OF  THE  BIBLE 


BEING 


AN  EXAMINATION 


A  REVIEW  OF  BISHOP  BROWNELL'S  FOURTH  CHARGE 

TO  HIS  CLERGY,  IN  THE  NEW  ENGLANDER 

JOR  JANUARY,  1844. 


"  The  distinctive  religion  of  New  England." 

New  EngJander,  II.  H3. 


HARTFORD. 

HENRY    S.  PARSONS 
1844. 


FEBRUAav  5th,  1844. 

Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  character  of  the  article  in  the  New  Englander  for  the  last 
month,  purporting  to  be  a  Review  of  your  Charge,  being  such,  that  you 
cannot,  consistently  with  your  self-respect,  take  any  notice  of  it,  and  yet 
being  of  such  a  nature  as  to  need  exposure,  I  have  presumed  to  offer  a 
few  words  in  examination  of  the  Review,  and  in  confirmation  of  the  im- 
portant facts  and  positions  contained  in  the  Charge.  Trusting  what  I 
have  said  will  meet  your  approbation, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Right  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Your  obedient  servant,     ^ 

Juris  Consultus. 
To  Rt.  Rev.  T.  C.  Brownell,  D.  D.  LL.  D.    ) 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut.         \ 


Stanley  <f-  Chapin,  Printers. 


/  / 

EXAMINATION,  &c. 


If  the  importance  of  a  document  may  be  estimated  Ly 
the  effect  of  its  publication,  the  Charge  of  Bishop  Brownell 
on  the  "  Errors  of  the  Times"  is  one  of  th^  most  import- 
ant ever  issued  from  the  press.  It  seems  to  have  thrown 
consternation  into  the  ranks  of  our  opponents,  or  as  Ter- 
tnllian  would  have  said,  "  into  the  camp  of  the  rebels."* 
And  since  they  have  recovered  from  the  first  shock,  it  has 
been  talked  over  in  private  circles,  commented  upon  in  lec- 
tures, preached  about  in  the  pulpits,  and  railed  against  in 
the  newspapers.!  Every  species  of  warfare  which  wit,  or 
ridicule,  or  buffoonery  could  suggest,  and  every  kind  of 
weapon,  from  the  small  arms  of  the  Religious  Herald,  to  the 
heavy  ordnance  of  the  JVew  Englandcr,  has  been  brought 
to  bear  upon  it.  In  the  meantime  Churchmen  have  looked 
on,  quietly  watching  the  terror  and  affright  of  those,  who, 
all  at  once  had  been  caused  to  see  themselves,  as  others  see 
them.  We  do  not  much  wonder  at  the  unqualified  abuse, 
and  unmitigated  hostility  with  which  it  has  been  honored, 
for  it  must  have  been  both  difficult  and  painful  for  those 
who  had  not  kept  their  eyes  upon  the  ancient  land-marks, 
to  realize  that  they  had  drifted  so  far  from  their  moorings, 

*  Praes.  Heer.  c.  41.  This  is  the  name  given  by  him  to  those  assemblies  that 
reject  the  Episcopate  and  Apostolic  succession,  and  set  aside  the  Apostolic  tradi- 
tions. 

t  Perhaps  the  reviewer  will  not  allow^  that  the  Charge  was  the  cause,  though 
it  was  the  occasion  of  these  things.  Indeed,  he  represents  his  brethren  as  longing 
for  the  onslaught,  like  hounds  at  bay,  impatient  for  the  chase.  "  Others  we  know, 
and  they  are  the  many,  hailed  its  [the  Charge's]  appearance  as  a  deliverance  with 
real  exultation.  It  eased  them  from  the  perplexity  which  had  long  tried  their  pa- 
tience." p.  143. 


and  were  so  near  foundering  amid  shoals  and  quicksands.* 
The  surprize  and,  alarm  naturally  caused  by  the  discovery 
of  their  real  situation,  may  properly  be  received  as  an 
apology  for  the  uncourteousness  of  the  guerilla  warfare 
of  their  hebdomadals,  but  is  no  excuse  for  the  deliberate 
barbarity  of  the  New  Englander. 

This  Charge  has  now  been  before  the  public  six  months, 
and  has,  in  the  mean  time,  been  talked  over,  lectured 
upon,  and  preached  about,  and  been  pronounced,  by  the 
New  Engender  itself,  (I.  546,)  a  document  of  sufficient 
importance  to  demand  a  separate  and  deliberate  considera- 
tion. Consequently,  this  review  is  the  "  deliberate"  pro- 
duction of  one  of  the  ablest,  (we  may  presume,  for  it  is 
anonymous,)  of  the  contributors  to  that  periodical,  written 
after  months  of  consideration  and  reflection,  and  with  all 
the  aid  and  assistance  that  his  co-laborers  could  afford. f 
It  is  an  important  document,  therefore,  not  for  its  intrinsic 
merit,  but  as  an  index  to  the  tone,  and  temper,  and  spirit 
of  that  periodical,  as  indicative  of  the  mode  of  warfare 
which  the  Church  has  to  expect,  and  as  an  example  of  the 
treatment  which  Churchmen  are  to  receive  at  its  hands. 
And  it  must  also  be  regarded,  as  the  best  answer  that  can 
be  made  to  the  "  Errors  of  the  Times." 

But  there  is  a  portion  of  the  review,  to  which  neither  our 
principles  nor  our  taste  wall  permit  us  to  reply.  The  style, 
and  manner,  and  spirit,  are  such  as  we  desire  not  to  imitate. 
Yet  we  cannot  do  the  reviewer  justice,  nor  enable  our  read- 
ers to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  his  article,  without  giving 
some  specimens  under  these  heads.     And  this  they  might 


*  The  helmsman  of  their  ship,  seems  to  have  been  an  unskilful  mariner,  think- 
ing of  nothing  but  keeping  the  masts  before  each  other,  without  noting  their  bear- 
ing with  the  polar  star.  And  because  the  masts  kept  directly  ahead,  he  seems  not 
to  have  .thought  but  the  ship  was  also  keeping  straight  on  her  course. 

t  The  New  Englander  is  determined,  not  to  make  any  waste  by  its  haste.  It 
took  nine  months  in  preparing  a  review  of  Chapin's  Primitive  Church,  and  six 
months  in  preparing  a  review  of  the  Bishop's  Charge. 


expect  for  another  reason,  as  it  is'always  satisfactory  when 
reading  any  book,  periodical  or  review,  to  know  something 
of  the  intelligence,  candor,  and  orthodoxy  of  the  writer  In 
order,  therefore,  to  reflect  the  moral  and  intellectual  phases 
of  New-Englandism,  and  to  show  the  reviewer  in  a  light, 
in  which  he  seems  ambitious  to  appear,  we  shall  draw  out 
a  few  of  the  leading  features  of  his  mind,  as  _he  has  de- 
lineated them  in  this  review. 

1.  Of  the  reviewer's  taste  and  style.  He  has  given  us  a 
sure  index  of  his  taste,  and  a  clue  to  the  source  from  whence 
he  has  drawn  his  models  of  style,  at  the  very  opening  of 
his  article.  The  Bishop,  seated  in  the  chancel,  under  the 
most  solemn  vow  which  man  can  make,  to  banish  and  drive 
away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrine,  solemnly  address- 
ing his  Clergy  on  the  "  Errors  of  the  Times,"  brings  up  no 
association  in  the  mind  of  the  reviewer,  but  that  of  the 
mock  tragedian  "  Bottom,"  in  Shakespeare's  Midsummer^ s 
JYight  Bream.  And  the  "  roaring"  of  that  "  Nightingale 
of  a  Lion,"  as  Bottom  described  himself,  the  reviewer  tells 
us,  abode  by  him  in  his  "  first  reading  of  the  Charge,"  and 
even  when  he  had  "  set  down  to  the  solemn  office  of 
review,"  was  still  "  sounding  in  his  ears."*  But  he  might 
have  spared  himself  the  trouble  of  proclaiming  it  to  his 
readers.  It  is  evident  on  every  page.  No  man,  but  one  fa- 
miliar with  the  character  of  Puck,  and  Bottom,  and  Bar- 
dolph,  and  Pistol,  and  Nym,  could  have  manifested  such  fe- 

*  The  editor  of  the  Church  Chronicle  suggests,  and  we  think  very  appropriate- 
ly, that  the  reviewer  in  order  to  complete  the  scene,  had  attempted  to  act  the  char- 
acter  of  Bottom's  associate,  Puch,  as  described  by  himself ;  and  certainly,  had  the 
poet  been  a  prophet,  he  could  not  have  more  accurately  described  the  character  of 
the  reviewer  in  this  article,  than  he  has  done  in  the  following  passage  : 
"  I'll  lead  you  about,  around. 

Through  bog,  through  bush,  through  brake,  through  brier ; 

Sometime  a  horse  I'll  be,  sometime  a  hound, 

A  hog,  a  beardless  bear,  sometime  a  fire  ; 

And  neigh,  and  bark,  and  grunt,  and  roar,  and  bum, 

Like  horso,  hcg,  hound,  bear,  fire,  at  every  turn." 


licity  of  expression,  in  their  peculiar  dialect.  Everything 
he  sees  and  hears,  reminds  him  of  some  appropriate  expres- 
sion of  theirs.  Thus  the  language  and  figures  in  which  he 
describes  the  doctrine  of  tradition,  as  "  the  foul  old  dogma 
of  the  Papacy,  which  now  reveals  its  last  stage  of  putrition 
in  the  Oxford  fer men  f  (p.  148),  and  which  reaches  through 
all  the  filth  of  Church  history"  (p.  152),  was  evidently  sug- 
gested by  FalstafF's  account  of  his  situation  in  the  "buck- 
basket,"  with  sundry  "  foul,  greasy,  stinking,"  unmention- 
ables. 

So  the  ideas  and  epithets  employed  in  his  description  of 
Episcopacy, — "  the  witch-broth  style  of  Episcopacy  ;  patch- 
es and  scraps — a  lock  of  St.  Ignatius,  and  finger  of  St.  Cyp- 
rian— a  tooth  of  Laud,  and  dead  men's  bones  from  every 
region  ;  simmered  and  stirred  by  the  anointed  wisdom,  and 
magic  authority  of  a  successor  of  the  Apostles"  (p.  172), 
was  evidently  borrowed  from  the  witch-song  in  Macbeth.* 
And  the  imagination,  that  "  the  ghosts  of  all  the  Popes  had 
come  back  to  howl  and  gibber"  (p.  148)  in  the  Charge,  is 
equally  classic.  Indeed,  one  familiar  with  Shakespeare,  es- 
pecially the  lowest  and  most  vulgar  of  his  comedies,  might 
no  doubt  discover  the  original  of  very  much  of  the  review. 

But  there  are  things  in  it  which  were  not  copied,  things 
which  Willy  Shakespeare  would  have  been  ashamed  to  have 
written,  and  which  remind  us  of  the  ^lang  of  a  Kentucky 
boatman,  or  the  lingo  of  St.  Giles.     A  single  example  will 

*  We  subjoin  a  specimen,  to  show  the  correspondence  between  the  reviewer  and 
his  authorities  : 

"  Fillet  of  a  fenny  snake, 
In  the  cauldron  boil  and  bake  ; 
Eye  of  newt ,  and  toe  of  frog, 
Wool  of  bat,  and  tongue  of  dog. 
Adder's  fork,  and  bllnd.worm's  sting, 
Lizard's  leg,  and  owlet's  wing. 
For  a  charm  of  powerful  trouble 
Like  a  hell-broth  boil  and  bubble." 

Macheth,  Act  IV.  Scene  1. 


suffice.  Thus  he  says,  "our  Churches  may  see,"  in  the 
Charge,  "the  dry  bones  [of  Connecticut  Episcopacy]  un- 
covered, the  dead  flat  of  Pharisaism  is  spread  out  before 
them,  the  ghastly  grin  of  spiritual  death  stares  them  in  the 
face"  (p.  144).  With  the  exception  of  a  bad  parody  on 
Milton's— 

"  Grinned  horribly  a  ghastly   smile," 

this  passage  is  the  real  German  Rothwalsch,  which  is  ele- 
gantly rendered  into  English  by  "  Thieves'  Latin." 

The  purify  and  delicacy  of  his  style,  is  in  good  keeping 
with  his  taste.  For  example,  the  "  exploding"  of  the  Bish- 
op's Charge,  as  its  delivery  is  called  by  our  militant  review- 
er, is  compared  to  "  a  whizzing  sound  heard  at  the" ■ 

"  of  the  gun"  (p.  146) .  The  apostolical  succession  is  com- 
pared to  "breathing  over  the  breath  of  the  apostles  and  the 
line  of  popes  in  regular  succession"  (p.  161),  transmitted 
we  suppose,  from  another  illustration  of  the  same  thing  (p. 
162)  by  placing  them  in  contact,  heads  and  points,  like  the 
poles  in  a  series  of  galvanic  batteries,  when  a  shock  is  to 
be  communicated  to  a  great  distance.  On  one  half  page  he 
applies  the  following  epithets  to  the  Church  and  Church- 
men, "  foul,  polluted,  putrition,  ferment,  gibber,  howl,  ar- 
rant fanatic,  carnally  inflated,  senseless  zeal.  Church-mad 
inspiration"  (p.  144).  And  in  other  places,  not  included  in 
the  quotations  under  any  other  head,  he  employs  epithets 
like  these,  in  describing  us,  and  our  doctrines,  "  vituper- 
ation, apostacy,  lust,  rapacity,  going  after  lovers,  Jesuits, 
Popes,  magic  potency,  incantations,"  &c.  &c.  But  we  can 
neither  spend  time,  nor  spare  room  to  copy  a  tithe  of  the  ex- 
amples under  this  head.  We  commend  the  whole  article  to 
the  study  of  those  who  are  desirous  of  perfecting  them- 
selves in  the  use  of  Billingsgate. 

2.  Of  the  reviewers  courtesy.  The  foregoing  specimens 
would  properly  come  under  this  head,  were  there  any  stand- 
ard of  taste.     But,  as  the  maxim  says,  "there  is  no  dispu- 


8 

ting  about  tastes,"  we  regard  tliem  merely  as  exhibitions  of 
intellectual  and  moral  preferences,  having  no  bearing  on 
the  question  of  courtesy.  Some  of  his  readers  may  possi- 
bly think,  that  he  designed  to  be  uncourteous,  but  we  lay  no 
such  sin  to  his  charge,  and  as  he  gives  us  to  understand  that 
he  is  a  "  Congregational  Minister,"  we  look  to  him  for  a 
specimen  of  what  he  deems  appropriate  to  the  character  and 
office  of  such  a  functionary. 

It  is  conceded  by  the  revievv^er  himself,  that  the  Bishop, 
is  "  habitually  cool  and  moderate,  respectable  and  respected 
hitherto,  for  his  official  discretion,  and  the  general  courtesy 
of  manners  to  Christians  of  other  names"  (p.  146).  Yet  it 
is  consistent  with  his  ideas  of  Christian  intercourse  and 
Ministerial  courtesy,  to  say  that  he  "  has  had  the  audacity 
to  insult  every  habit,  prejudice,  and  principle  in  their  bo- 
soms" (p.  148),  as  "  intending  to  insult  them,"  and  "  taking 
malignant  pleasure  in  the  insult"  (p.  147),  and  that  by  his 
"gratuitous  insult,"  he  has  "  put  himself  beyond  the  pale  of 
civilized  warfare,  and  sacrificed  every  claim  to  personal  cour- 
tesy or  official  respect"  (p.  147),  so  that  "  any  expression  of 
respect  on  their  part,  however  qualified,  is  an  act  of  mercy, 
rather  than  of  justice"  (p.  147).  The  cause  of  this  offence, 
which  has  thus  put  the  Bishop  out  of  the  pale  of  civilized 
society,  was  simply  calling  them  Bissenters^  as  has  been  the 
constant  practice  in  this  State  for  more  than  a  hundred 
years. 

The  Charge^  notwithstanding  the  importance  given  it 
by  the  New  Englander  itself,  this  reviewer  characterizes 
as  a  "  ludicrous  thing"  (p.  149),  "  a  flat  and  malignant  at- 
tack upon  the  distinctive  religion  of  New  England"  (p.  143), 
a  thing  of  "  exquisite  absurdity"  (p.  158),  "  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal jumble  of  scrap  reasoning"  like  "  the  sweepings  of  the 
streets"  (p.  162),  the  "  doctrine  impious,"  the  argument  a 
piece  of  "  fallacy  and  wickedness"  (p. 150),  "  a  tissue  of 
errors,  at  once  feeble  and  pernicious."  How  he  reconciles 
these  statements  with  each  other,  and  with  the  importance 
hitherto  attached  to  it,  is  more  than  we  know. 


To  these  examples  of  courtesy  to  an  individual  who  is  ac* 
knowledgedto  be  a  "  mild  spirited,"  (p.  143,)  "courteous'' 
(p.  146)  man,  we  add  a  few  specimens  of  the  epithets  applied 
to  others.  Thus  he  speaks  of  the  "rapacious  ravening  wolf-^ 
hood,  miscalled  by  the  epithet  clergy  of  England — the  Lord 
Bishops  acting  Dives  in  their  fine  linen,  at  the  rate  of  three 
hundred  thousand  a  year,  the  younger  sons  of  noblemen, 
parcelled  off  to  their  riotous  'livings,^  acting  the  prodigal, 
without  either  acting  or  teaching  his  repentance,  and  escap- 
ing the  husks  by  tithing  the  corn, — a  race  of  priestly  extor- 
tioners in  the  name  of  ChrIst  Jesus,  hunting,  drinking, 
gaming,  and  swearing,  under  cover  of  the  Apostolic  succes- 
sion,— not  novices  in  doctrine,  because  they  have  not  ad- 
vanced so  far,— stealing  their  sermons  to  supply  the  want  of 
the  head,  and  plundering  the  poor  to  fill  the  want  of  the 
body — piercing  to  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  not 
by  their  arguments,  but  by  their  extortions, — examples  to 
Iheir  flocks,  only  as  they  show  them,  by  example,  how  to 
wear  the  fleece."  (p.  154.)  Such  is  his  picture  of  the  Eng- 
lish clergy,  which  he  says  "  the  clergy  in  this  country  are 
endeavouring  to  imitate."  (p.  146.)  And  the  Church  itself 
he  describes  as  "  a  synod  of  foxes  united  by  firebrands — 
Calvinistic  ministers,  priestly  drones  and  nothingarians — 
Arrainian  Bishops,  who  have  not  so  much  as  learned  from 
Arrainius  the  notion  of  a  spiritual  religion, — sentimental 
formalists,  formalists  without  sentiment,  (save  the  love  of 
money  and  good  living.)  Oxfordizing  and  Romanizing  doc- 
tors, all  kennelled  together  under  the  standard  of  faith  and 
worship  in  the  Book  ot  Common  Prayer."  (p.  156.) 

When  reading  such  things  as  these,  we  are  reminded  of  a 
passage  in  the  inimitable  ScotchPoet: 

"  O  ye  wha  are  sae  guid,  yoursel, 

Sae  pious  and  sae  holy, 
Ye've  naught  to  do  but  mark  and  tell 

Your  neebor's  faults  and  folly  1" 

2 


10 

3.  Of  the  reviewer's  orthodoxy.  The  reviewer  describes 
himself  as  a  Congregational  minister  in  this  State,  and 
hence  he  may  expect  us  to  take  his  orthodoxy  for  granted. 
Yet  he  cannot  but  be  aware,  that  the  orthodoxy  of  very 
many  of  that  school  to  which  he  belongs,  has  been  more 
than  suspected,  even  by  their  own  brethren.  Had  not 
this  been  the  case,  we  could  not  close  our  eyes  to  the  evi- 
dent sympathies  manifested  in  the  present  article.  Thus, 
speaking  of  the  German  and  Swiss  Churches,  he  says,  "  with 
all  their  heresies  and  frigid  neologisms,  their  state  is  yet 
greatly  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  the  A.nglican  Episcopal 
Church.  And  if  we  were  this  day  to  import  a  religion,  we 
should  not  hesitate  a  moment  to  make  out  an  order  on  Ger- 
many in  preference  to  the  English  Episcopate."  (p.  154.) 
Of  the  present  state  of  the  English  Episcopal  Church,  it 
can  hardly  be  necessary  for  us  to  speak;  certainly  not  in  its 
defence  against  a  writer  who  is  so  ignorant  on  the  subject 
as  the  reviewer.  It  is  not  pretended,  even  by  the  reviewer 
himself,  that  there  is  any  general  heresy^  or  apostacy  in  that 
Church.  But  what  the  German  heresies  are,  and  what  is 
their  extent,  is  not  generally  as  well  known,  and  a  few  speci- 
mens will  be  added  by  way  of  illustration,  showing  what 
are  the  doctrines  and  principles  preferred  by  our  reviewer, 
to  those  of  the  English  Church. 

"  It  cannot  be  denied,"  says  Tennemann,  "  that  Fichte's 
[who  died  in  1814]  idealism  had  great  influence  on  the  spirit 
of  his  age."*  According  to  the  "  religious  pliilosophy"  of 
this  author,  says  Tennemann,  "  we  need  no  other  God  than 
the  order  of  this  world It  is  not  possible  to  as- 
cribe intelligence  and  personalitiy  to  God  without  making 
him  a  finite  being  like  ourselves."!  Here,  then,  we  have 
one  calling  himself  a  Christian  philosopher,  whose  "  relig- 
ious philosopy,"  denied  "intelligence  and  personality"  to 

*  Hist.  Philos.,  p.  505,  in  Murdock'S  Germ.  Philos.,  p.  103. 
tTenn.p.  502,  Murd.p.lOl. 


.  11 

the  Deity,  ami  which  acknowledges  no  God  but  "  the  order 
of  this  world"! 

One  of  the  admirers  of  Fichte's  philosophy,  one  who 
has  given  the  world  a  system  of  his  own,  and  who  is 
probably  now  living,  is  Schellbig.  His  system  is  called  the 
Docirine  of  IdenlUy,  (Identiiatslehre,)  because  he  maintains 
the  perfect  identity  of  the  knowledge  of  things,  and  of  the 
things  themselves.  It  is  also  called  The  All-one-doctrine ^ 
(Mleinheitsiehre,  or  Mleiiislehre,)  "  because,"  says  Dr.  Mur- 
dock,  "  it  maintains  that  the  Universe  is  God,  and  God  the 
Universe,  or  that  God  developing  himself  in  various  forms, 
and  according  to  general  laws,  is  the  only  existence."* 
"  This  pantheistic  principle  of  Spinoza,!  which,"  says  Dr. 
Murdock,  "  Schelling  revived  and  made  the  basis  of  his 
philosophy,  was  eagerly  adopted  by  vast  numbers  in  Ger- 
many, and  many  who  did  not  follovv'  Schelling's  opinions  on 
other  points,  embraced  this  doctrine  as  true. "|  Among  the 
leading  German  Philosophers  who  have  adopted  Schelling's 
views,  either  with  or  without  modification,  are  Bouterwek, 
Bardili,  Esbhenmayer,  Wagner,  and  Krause. 

Another  leader  in  the  Schools  of  German  philosophy  was 
Hegel,  who  died  in  1831.  He  was  at  first  a  follower  of 
Schelling,  and  always  taught  "  the  indentity  of  God  and 
the  Universe. "§  He  differed  from  his  master,  inasmuch  as 
Schelling  taught  that  God  or  the  Universe,  was  "  a  real 
substance,"  whereas  Hegel  regarded  "  ideas,  or  concep- 
tions as  the  only  existences."  This  school  had  many  dis- 
ciples and  followers.  We  cannot  give  a  better  account  of 
the  view  taken  of  Hegel's  religious  philosophy  by  his  coun- 

«  Murd.  p.  104. 

t  For  an  account  of  the  Philosophy  of  Spinoza,  see  Norton's  Remarks  on  a 
late  Pamph.,  11-27.      Am.  Encyc.  XI.  596.     Murd.  Germ.  Philos.  pp.  26-29. 

t  ?4urd.  III.  Schcllinjj  has  recently  modiiied  his  Philosophy.  Biederniao. 
Germ.  Philos.  II.  c.  7. 

&  iMurd.  118. 


13 

trymen  and  cotemporaries,  than  by  copying  an  extract  from 
the  pantheist,  Eschenmayer.  He  says;*  "  Hegel  has  a 
God  without  holiness,  a  Christ  without  free  love,  a  Holy 
Ghost  without  illumination,  a  Gospel  without  faith,  an 
Apostacy  without  sin,  wickedness  without  conscious  guilt, 
an  atonement  without  remission  of  sin,  a  death  without  an 
offering,  a  religious  assembly  without  divine  worship,  a  re- 
lease without  imputation,  justice  without  a  judge,  grace 
without  redemption,  dogmatic  theology  without  a  revelation, 
a  this  side  without  a  that  side,  an  immortality  without  a 
personal  existence,  a  Christian  religion  without  Christiani-!- 
ty,  and  in  general  a  religion  without  religion." 

Our  readers  may  possibly  imagine  that  these  men  were 
infidels,  that  it  is  impossible  they  should  profess  to  be  Chris- 
tians. Yet  so  it  was,  "  not  one  of  them,"  says  Dr.  Mur- 
dock,  "  professed  either  atheism  or  materialism,  ....  or 
showed  himself  a  disbeliever  in  the  great  principles  of  nat- 
ural religion."!  They  were  philosophers,  so  called,  Chris- 
tian philosophers!  And  these  are  the  doctrines  and  opinions 
with  which  our  reviewer  sympathizes.  Well  may  we  expect 
him,  then,  to  dislike  the  principles  of  the  English  Church. 

But  perhaps  the  reviewer  may  say,  that  it  is  the  religion 
of  Germany,  not  the  "  religious  philosophy"  with  which  he 
sympathizes.  If  so,  we  will  give  a  few  specimens  of  their 
religious  tenets.  One  of  the  most  active,  admired,  and  in- 
fluential clergymen  of  Germany,  in  the  first  part  of  the 
present  century,  was  Schleirmarcher.t  He  taught  that  "the 
idea  of  a  personal  God  was  pure  mythology. "§     He  was 

*  Hegel's  Rel.  Phllos.  Comp.  with  princ.  of  Christianity,  100,     Murd.  126. 

t  Murd.  p.  13^.  We  hope  a  better  day  is  dawninjj  on  German  Philosophy. — < 
Since  1832  the  pantheism  of  Schelling  and  Hegel  have  been  giving  place  to  the 
more  practical  philosophy  of  Herbert  and  other  common  sense  writers.  Bied.  II. 
C.6. 

t  Am.  Encyc.  XI.  243, 244. 

§  Norton's  Latest  form  of  Infidelity,  p.  44.  See  Nort.  Rem.  etc.  ST-.'ia,  for  an 
account  of  Sciileirmarcher. 


13 

a  philosopher,  apparently  of  the  Schelling  School,  and 
like  him,  held  to  the  pantheism  of  Spinoza,  whom  he  pro- 
nounces, a  man  "  full  of  religion  and  of  a  holy  spirit." 
And  this,  in  a  book,  professedly  written  through  "  a  divine 
call,"  "  a  heavenly  impulse."* 

Another  prominent  German  professor  of  theology,  and 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  German  theologians,  is  Paulus, 
the  commentator  on  the  Bible.  In  his  Preface  to  an  Edi- 
tion of  theworksof  Spinoza,  he  speaks  of"  the  superstitious 
and  ridiculous  horror  of  the  atheism,  so-called,  of  Spino- 
za."! The  last  development  of  this  liberal  Christianity, 
for  which  our  reviewer  expresses  so  much  regard,  is  found 
in  the  Life  of  Jesus,  critially  treated,  (2  vols,  8vo.,)  by 
David  Frederic  Strauss,  one  of  the  German  professors  of 
theology,  in  which  he  denies  the  existence  of  any  such  be- 
ing as  Jesus  Christ,  and  teaches  that  Christ  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  an  individual,  but  as  an  idea."l 

Another  German  doctor  and  professor  of  divinity  is  the 
celebrated  commentator  De  Wette.  "  The  greatest  and 
most  pregnant  idea  of  the  Nevv^  Theology,"  says  this  man, 
"  the  establishment  of  which  has  been  the  main  business  of 
my  theological  life,  is,  that  what  is  proposed  for  religiDus 
faith,  must  contain  nothing  metaphysical,  or  only  so  much 
as  is  necessary  for  a  clear  understanding  of  the  faith,  that 
its  essence  is  not  in  propositions  which  are  the  object  of 
knowledge,  ....  not  resting  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
faith  ....  upon  common,  naked,  historical  truth,  .... 
especially,"  he  says,  "  let  us  renounce  ....  the  poor  and 
unscientific  appeal  to  miraculous  evidence. "§ 

We  will  not  say  that  the  man  who  can  speak,  as  our  re- 

*  Nort.  Lat.  form  Infid.  43.  t  lb.  44.  t  lb.  46.  47. 

§  lb.  40-42.  De  Wette's  mode  of  reasoning  in  regard  to  miracles  is  after  this 
manner  : — "  Common  sense  determines  that  such  miracles  [as  recorded  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch]  arc  impossible.  It  may,  however,  be  inquired  whether  some  events  did 
not  really  happen  which  to  eye  witnesses  and  co-temporaneous  seemed  to  be  mi. 
raculous."     Introd-  O.  T.  h  li5.    Jahn  Introd.  O.  T.  Par.  II.  §  12.  n. 


14 

viewer  has  done,  of  German  theologians,  does,  of  necessity, 
belipve  as  they  do.  But  we  must  say,  that  the  approval  he 
gives  them,  is  clear  proof  that  they  have  his  sympathies 
to  a  very  great  extent.  Indeed,  we  should  be  tempted  to 
believe  that  the  reviewer  had  already  made  "  an  importation 
of  religion  from  Germany,"  did  not  his  article  lead  us  to 
doubt  whether  he  knows  anything  of  it,  except  at  second 
hand. 

Nor  is  his  sympathy  with  the  Socinianism  of  Germany, 
less  marked  and  striking.  Indeed,  so  mildly  does  he  look 
upon  that  soul-destroying  heresy. — that  God-denying  apos- 
tacy,  that  he  will  not  believe  the  Unitarianism  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Everett,  had  anything  to  do  with  the  disturbances  at  Oxford, 
at  the  conferring  of  his  degree,  (p.  145,)  though  unfortu- 
nately for  his  argument,  no  objection  was  made  to  it,  after 
he  had  given  his  assent  to  the  Creed  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

To  these  specimens  of  the  author's  taste,  style,  courtesy, 
and  orthodoxy,  we  ought  to  add  some  showing  the  richness 
of  that  rhetoric,  which  enables  him  to  perform  more  won- 
derful acts  than  the  transmigrations  ol  the  Hindoo  me- 
tempsychosis,— which  enables  him,  on  a  single  page, 
(p.  156,)  to  liken  the  clergy  of  the  Church,  to  "  foxes  and 
fire-brands,"  to  "  lambs  and  wolves,"  to  "  doves  and  vul- 
tures," dwelling  in  "  kennels"  and  caught  in  "  nets."  We 
ought,  also,  to  offer  a  word  on  the  subject  of  that  reverence^ 
which  leads  him  to  introduce  "  Christ"  and  "  Bottom"  in- 
to the  same  paragraph,  (p.  103,)  and  the  "  Hot.y  Ghost"  and 
the  "  devil,"  (will  our  readers  pardon  the  impiety,  we  only 
quote?)  at  once  into  the  same  passage,  (p.  144.)  But  we 
cannot  afford  space,  and  we  shrink  from  the  almost  blasphe- 
my of  the  reviewer.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  he  has  earned  a 
reputation  which  ought  hereafter  to  place  him  in  the  same 
category  with  the  New  York  Herald  and  New  York  Evan- 
gelist. 

It  may  be  asked,  then,  why  answer  such  a  production  7 


15 

Simply  because  it  appears  in  a  periodical  that  professes  to 
be  respectable,  the  Editor  of  which  is  a  respectable  man, 
and  has  united  with  him  respectable  men  as  his  associates. 
The  appearance  of  an  article  in  such  a  work,  entitles 
whatever  there  is  of  argument  in  it,  to  a  respectful  consid- 
eration, even  though  under  other  circumstances,  we  might 
have  supposed  the  writer  an  infidel  in  disguise.  To  the 
arguments  we  shall  now  turn  our  attention,  unmindful  of  the 
sneers,  and  scoffs,  and  blackguardism  of  the  writer. 

The  several  subjects  considered  and  commented  upon  by 
the  reviewer,  are  mainly  the  following: 

I.  The  right  of  private  judgment. 

II.  The  state  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  as  compared  with 
other  Protestant  denominations. 

III.  The  design  and  mission  of  the  christian  Church,  in- 
cluding baptism  and  the  "  New  Light  Theology." 

The  first  point,  or  the  right  of  private  judgment,  would 
perhaps,  be  more  appropriately  entitled  the  right  use  or  the 
extent  of  private  judg7nent,  this  being  the  real  question  at 
issue.  Our  first  business  should,  therefore,  be,  to  inquire 
what  is  meant  by  "  the  right  of  private  judgment  ?"  "  The 
general  exercise  of  private  judgment,"  says  the  Bishop  in 
his  Charge,  and  of  the  freedom  of  the  wall,  is  the  natural 
and  inalienable  right  of  every  man.  But  he  is  responsible 
to  God,  and  in  a  minor  degree  to  his  fellow-men  for  the 
manner  in  which  he  exercises  these  faculties.  He  may  not 
rightly  set  them  up  in  opposition  to  the  word  of  God.  He 
may  not  rightly  exercise  them  in  a  spirit  of  vanity,  perver- 
sity, or  self-conceit.  He  may  not  rightly  exercise  them  in 
a  way  injurious  to  the  peace  and  order  of  society,  nor  with- 
out due  veneration  lor  the  judgment  of  the  Church  and  its 
ministry; — so  far  as  that  is  supported  by  primitive  tradition 
and  usage,  and  is  in  conformity  to  the  divine  word.  We 
deem  him  self-sufficient  who  pays  no  respect  to  public  opin- 
ion, even  though  that  opinion  be  founded  on  the  caprice 


16 

df  the  day.  Much  less  is  he  to  be  commended  who  sets  at 
naught  the  opinions  which  have  stood  the  scrutiny  of  ages, 
and  which  have  for  centuries  received  the  sanction  of  the 
Universal  Church."  (p.  7,  8.)  To  this  the  reviewer  assents^ 
and  adds,  "  this  is  exactly  our  opinion  and  the  opinion  of 
all  sensible  christians  in  the  protestant  world."  (150.)  On 
this  point,  therefore,  there  is  no  disagreement,  and  it  is 
*'  the  opinion  of  all  sensible  christians  in  the  protestant 
world,"  that  "  he  is  not  to  be  commended,  who  sets  at 
naught  the  opinions  which  have  stood  the  scrutiny  of  ages, 
and  which  have  for  centuries  received  the  sanction  of  the 
Universal  Church,"  as  for  example  Episcopacy  and  forms 
of  prayer. 

But  if  men  are  "  not  to  be  commended"  who  set  at  naught 
these  things,  what  deference  is  to  be  paid  to  their  authority"? 
The  Bishop  says,  "  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  they  were  in- 
terpreted by  the  Church  during  the  two  first  centuries  after 
the  ascension  of  Our  Saviour,  not  as  they  may  chance  to  be 
interpreted  by  the  wayward  fancies  of  individuals,  consti- 
tute the  only  sure  basis  to  rest  upon."  (p.  5.)  To  this  the 
reviewer  replies  with  much  caution.  "  So  far,"  says  he, 
*'  from  setting  aside  the  [Fathers  of  the]  first  two  centuries, 
we  claim  them  on  our  side,  in  every  question  between  us." 
But  lest  it  should  be  difficult  to  substantiate  this  claim,  he 
adds,  "  though  without  any  such  opinion  of  their  infallibili- 
ty as  to  bind  ourselves  to  an  implicit  submission  to  their 
authority."  (p.  150.)  Here  then  is  the  real  point  at  issue; 
is  there  any  supposable  case,  in  which  the  unanimous  consent 
of  all  of  the  fathers  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  may  com^ 
mand  our  assent?  The  reviewer  would  say  JV*o,  the  Bishop 
Yes.* 

*  The  reviewer's  pretence  that  the  Bishop  holds  their  doctrine  of  private  judg- 
ment,  (p.  151,)  is  a  very  strange  one.  The  Bishop  asserts  distinctly,  that  tlie 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Church,  asset  forth  in  the  fathers  of  the  f5r?t  and  second 
centuries,  on  any  matter  of  fact,  whether  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  is  binding,  as 
the  lawyers  would  say  in  furo  fonsctentite.     This  the  reviewer  denies  in  toto. 


17 

To  suppose  a  case.  IrenEEus,  Bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul^ 
from  A.  D.  176  to  202,  was  the  pupil  and  disciple  of  Poly- 
carp,  and  Polycarp  was  the  pupil  and  disciple  of  the  Apos- 
tle St.  John.  Now  Ireneeus  knew  what  was  the  faith  of 
the  Gallican  Churches  in  his  day,  on  the  'subject  of  the 
Trinity,  and  he  knew  from  Polycarp,  what  was  the  faith  of 
the  Asiatic  Churches  in  his  day  on  that  subject,  and  Poly- 
carp knew  from  St.  John  what  was  taught  by  the  inspired 
Apostles,  in  regard  to  the  same.  And  when  we  inquire  con- 
cerning the  faith  of  the  other  primitive  Churches,  we  find 
them  all  agreeing  on  these  two  points, — that  a  belief  in  the 
Trinity  was  universal,  and  that  it  was  held  to  have  come 
down  from  the  Apostles.  According  to  the  principles  of  the 
Church,  as  brought  out  in  the  Bishop's  Charge,  no  amount 
of  subsequent  testimony,  no  philosophical  or  metaphysical 
reasoning  can  set  aside  this  doctrine,  and  we  hold  ourselves 
as  much  bound  to  believe  it,  as  a  juryman  is  to  believe  the 
honest  testimony  of  a  credible  witness  to  a  matter  of  fact 
within  his  knowledge.  Will  the  reviewer  say  the  same? 
If  he  will,  and  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  fathers  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries,  he  will  give  up  his  present  post, 
and  no  more  attempt  to  execute  an  office  which  the  primitive 
Church  would  tell  him  he  had  iio  business  to  meddle  with. 
But  if  he  will  not,  and  while  he  is  a  Congregationalist  he 
can  not  take  that  ground,  where  is  his  pretended  deference 
for  their  authority?  He  must,  and  in  practice,  does  re- 
serve the  right  to  set  aside  any  and  every  oj)inion  of  the 
primitive  ages,  however  universal,  and  h  wever  impor- 
tant, whenever  it  happens  to  conflict  with  his  own  notions 
or  interests.  And  if  this  be  not  interpreting  scripture 
"  according  to  the  wayward  fancies  of  individuals,"  we 
know  not  what  would  be.  If  there  be  no  authority  to 
which  it  is  our  duty  to  submit  our  judgments  in  this  matter, 
then  the  fancy,  or  opinion,  of  every  individual,  or  whatev- 
er else  we  may  please  to  call  it,  must  be  his  guide. 


18 

We  do  not  say  that  Congregationalists  always  act  upon  this 
principle,  but  we  do  say,  that  so  far  as  they  are  consistent 
Congregationalists,  they  are  bound  to  do  it,  and  it  is  certain 
that  they  make  their  boast  of  doing  it.  That  they  fre- 
quently depart  from  it  in  practice  we  know.  They  quote 
the  fathers,  it  is  true,  when  they  make  for  their  side,  but 
when  they  make  against  it,  they  are  set  aside  without  cere- 
mony. It  is  also  true,  that  many  writers  have  claimed  all 
the  "  fathers  of  the  two  first  centuries,"  as  on  their  side. 
But  those  well  informed  on  the  subject  know  better.  In- 
deed, it  is  confessed  in  a  late  work  entitled  A  Congre- 
gational Catechism,  got  up  by  the  Editor  who  published  the 
article  under  consideration,  with  the  advice  of  such  men 
as  Rev.  Drs.  Murdock,  and  Hawes,  and  Bacon,  that  the 
fathers  of  the  second  century  prove  the  existence  of  Dio- 
cesan Episcopacy,  in  their  days,  and  that  they  held  it  to  be 
of  divine  institution. 

The  real  point  of  difference  is  this  ;  Churchmen  hold, 
that  the  uniform  consent  and  teaching,  or  what  is  the  same 
thing,  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  fathers,  of  the  two 
first  centuries,  to  any  matter  of  fact,  whether  relating  to 
doctrine  or  discipline,  is  binding  on  us.  This  our  reviewer 
denies,  and  he  claims  the  right,  in  common  with  all  his 
brethren,  to  set  aside,  and  he  does  set  aside,  this  unanimous 
consent,  whenever  it  does  not  agree  with  his  "  wayward 
fancy,"  as  any  one  at  all  conversant  with  their  writings, 
knows.  Indeed,  the  reviewer  himself  denominates  the 
opinions  of  the  fathers  "  patristic  absurdities,"  (II.  151,) 
and  his  predecessor,  has  pronounced  them  "  blind  guides." 
(I.  417.)  So  deep  rooted  has  this  prejudice  against  the  fa- 
thers been,  that  the  Congregational  minister,  who,  thirty 
years  ago,  should  have  been  known  as  a  student  of  them, 
would  have  been  considered  as  little  better  than  beside  him- 
self.    Even  within  much  less  time  than  that,  they  have  made 


19 

their  boast,  that  they  were  not  to  be  refuted  "  by  musty- 
quotations  from  the  fathers."* 

Again  the  reviewer  represents  the  Bishop  as  at  variance 
with  other  writers  on  this  subject,  because  he  confines  him- 
self to  the  "  two  first  centuries,"  while  some  include 
"  three,"  or  "  four,"  or  even  "  seven."  (11.  149.)  But  this 
is  of  no  sort  of  consequence.  The  rule  is  semper,  ubique,  et 
ah  omnibus;  a  doctrine  or  practice,  to  be  binding,  must  have 
been  recevied  "  at  all  times,  every  where,  and  by  all."  If, 
therefore,  no  trace  of  it  is  found  before  the  end  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  the  "  all  times,"  is  not  made  out,  and  the  doc- 
trine or  practice  is  not  binding.  The  advantage  of  including 
more  than  two  centuries,  is,  that  universality  may  often  be 
proved  more  conclusively  and  satisfactorily. 

But,  says  the  reviewer,  "  there  is  no  one  opinion  of  the 
first  two  centuries  which  can,  with  any  propriety,  be  con- 
sidered an  opinion  of  the  Church;  for  the  Church  was  not 
so  organized  as  to  have  any  joint  action,  or  to  unite  in  a 
common  expression  of  any  kind."  (II.  149.)  We  should 
deem  this  a  very  strange  assertion,  if  we  supposed  the  wri- 
ter spoke  intelligently.  Was  not  that  the  opinion  of  the 
Church,  which  every  orthodox  Church  held,  whether  there 
had  been  any  formal  decree  on  the  subject  or  not?  And 
were  not  practices  and  opinions,  which  were  constantly  ap- 
pealed to  as  authoritative,  because  coming  down  from  Apos- 
tolic days,  the  practices  and  opinions  of  the  Church,  before 
any  formal  decree  had  been  made  in  regard  to  them?  Does 
the  reviewer  intend  to  say,  that  nothing  of  this  kind  exist- 
ed? We  would  recommend  him  to  read,  for  once,  Tertul- 
lian's  book  on  Prczscription  against  Heretics ;  to  ponder 
what  he  says  concerning  the  rule  of  faith,  the  mode  of  refer- 
ence to  it,  its  universality  and  apostolicity, — the  improbabilty 
that  the  whole  Church  should  agree  in  error,  the  priority  of 

*  Bacon's  Man.  p.  43. 


20 

the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  the  later  date  of  heresy, 
the  universal  appeal  to  the  apostolic  Churches,  and  the 
apostolic  succession  by  all  orthodox  Churches,  and  he  will 
find  some  thing  which  will  probably  be  new  to  him.  Above 
all,  we  beg  him  to  ponder  the  following  extract  from  that 
work,  so  eminently  descriptive  of  the  heretics  and  schismat- 
ics of  all  ages. 

"  In  the  first  place,  it  is  doubtful  who  is  a  catechumen, 
who  is  a  believer:  they  have  all  access  alike,  they  hear 
alike,  they  pray  alike.  Even  if  heathens  come  in  upon 
them,  they  will  cast  that  which  is  holy  unto  dogs,  and  pearls, 
false  though  they  be,  before  swine.  They  will  have  the 
overthrow  of  discipline  to  be  simplicity;  and  the  care  of  it 
amongst  us  they  call  pandering.  They  huddle  up  a  peace 
with  all  every  where.  For  it  maketh  no  matter  to  them, 
although  they  hold  different  doctrines,  so  long  as  they  con- 
spire together  in  their  siege  against  the  one  thing,  Truth. 
All  are  puffed  up:  all  promise  knowledge.  Their  Catechu- 
mens are  perfected  before  they  are  taught Their 

o-dinations  are  careless,  capricious,  inconsistent.  At  one 
time  they  place  in  office  novices,  at  another  men  tied  to  the 
world,  at  another  apostates  from  us,  that  they  may  bind 
them  to  themselves  by  vain-glory,  since  they  can  not  by 
truth.  No  where  is  promotion  readier  than  in  the  camp 
of  rebels,  where,  even  to  be  there,  is  a  merit.  Wherefore 
one  man  is  Bishop  to-day,  another  to  morrow;  to-day  Dea- 
con, who  to- morrow  will  be  Reader:  to-day  Presbyter, 
who  to-morrow  will  be  Layman;  for  even  to  laymen  they 
commit  the^  priestly  offices." — c.  41. 

Now  that  this  is  descriptive  of  vast  numbers  at  the  present 
day,  is  unquestionably  true.  Their  "  Catechumens  "  or  as 
the  dissenters  style  them,  their"  converts,"  are  "  perfected 
before  they  are  taught,"  that  is,  their  conversion  makes 
them  at  once  leadeis  and  teachers.  If  we  may  judge  by 
their  conduct,  they  have  "  conspired  together  against  the 


Church."  "  Their  ordinations  are  careless,  capricious,  in^ 
consistent."  They  often  place  "  novices,"  that  is  "  new 
converts,"  in  the  office  of  teacher,  and  "  even  to  laymen 
they  commit  the  priestly  offices."  Had  Tertullian  written 
for  these  times,  he  could  not  have  better  described  the 
course  of  many  of  our  opponents,  than  he  has  done. 

Let  him  also  look  into  Irenseus,  and  he  will  find  a  simi- 
lar, and  equally  accurate  description.  The  same  pretence 
to  special  divine  illumination,  the  same  professions  of  su- 
perior sanctity,  the  same  charges  of  making  too  much  of 
forms,  the  same  rejection  of  the  apostolic  succession,  that 
is  so  common  at  the  present  day,  the  same  pretence  of  wis- 
dom, even  above  the  Apostles.*  Indeed,  had  some  of  our 
opponents  lived  in  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church,  they 
would  have  been  set  down  as  heretics,  without  hesitation 
or  qualification.  They  would  not  have  been  called  dissent- 
ers^ merely,  but  heretics,  enemies  to  the  Church,  and  reb- 
els against  God.  So  far,  therefore,  from  its  being  an  act 
of  discourtesy  for  us  to  call  those  dissenters^  who  set  aside 
the  Episcopate,  reject  the  apostolic  traditions,  and  conspire 
against  the  Church,  it  is  an  act  of  special  kindness  to  them. 
Were  we  to  call  them  heretics,  it  would  only  be  speaking  in 
the  language  of  the  "  first  two  centuries,"  but  then  they 
might  have  more  show  of  reason  for  complaint. 

But  there  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  this  unlimit- 
ed exercise  of  private  judgment  must  be  considered.  We 
must  look  at  its  tendency,  and  at  the  consequences  result-^ 
ing  from  it.  One  of  thf?  earliest,  if  not  the  very  earliest  of 
those  sects  who  carried  out  the  ^doctrine  of  this  unlimit- 
ed exercise  of  private  judgment,  were  the  Gnostics,  who  led 
the  way  in  corrupting  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church,! 
among  whom  are  to  be  reckoned  the  Cerinthians,|  the  Sa- 
turninans,§   the  Marcionites,||  the   Bardensanes,1T   the  Ta- 

•  Adv.  Hffir.  iii.  1,  2,  3.  t  Murd.  Mosh.  I.  110.  \  lb.  116. 

^  lb.  171.  II  lb.  172.  t  lb.  173. 


22 

tiansists,*  the  Basilidians,t  the  Carpocratians,J  the  Valen- 
tinians,§  the  Adamites,  and  Cainites,  and  Abelites,  and 
Sethiles,  and  Florinians,]!  and  Serpentinians.H  Besides 
these,  there  were  the  Praxeans,  and  the  Artemonites,**  and 
the  Montanists,tt  all  of  whom  appeared  before  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  and  were  condemned  by  the  unanimous 
voice  of  the  whole  orthodox  Church,  even  though  the  re- 
viewer may  have  what  he  calls  "  a  sweet  incapacity"  of  not 
understanding  the  facts. 

But  we  must  pass  over  the  long  interim  between  the 
second  century  and  later  days,  and  look  at  the  influence 
of  this  principle  in  modern  times.  The  Presbyterians  in 
England  became  so,  by  setting  up  their  opinion  against  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Independents,  by  setting  up  their 
opinion  against  that  of  the  Presbyterians,  the  Unitarians, 
by  setting  up  their  private  judgment  against  that  of  the 
Church.  Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  point  to  a  single  here- 
sy that  has  afflicted  the  Church,  either  in  primitive  or  mod- 
ern times,  that  has  not  resulted  from  an  unlimited  exercise 
of  private  judgment. 

Another  consequence  of  this  unlimited  exercise  of  pri- 
vate judgment,  maybe  seen  by  examining  the  history  of  the 
Canon  of  Scripture.  The  true  and  the  usual  mode  of  set- 
tling the  Canon  of  Scripture,  is  to  inquire  what  books  were 
received  in  the  age  immediately  succeeding  the  Apostles,  as  the 
genuine  productions  of  inspired  men?  And  such  books, — 
which  have  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries,  we  are  bound  to  receive.  We 
do,  in  fact,  receive  several  that  had  not  this  unaniinous  con- 
sent, though  they  had  the  consent  of  the  major  part,  as  the 
epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  the  second  of  Peter,  and  the 
second  and  third  of  John.Jt     To  see  the  influence  of  this 


*  Murd.  Mash.  I.  174.  t  lb.  175.  I  lb.  177. 

§  lb.  177.  II  lb.  180.  IT  lb.  181.  »»Ib.  182. 

tt  lb.  184.  It  Enseb.  iii.  25. 


23 

principle  in  regard  to  this  subject,  we  must  glance  at  the 
history  of  those  who  have  set  up  their  own  judgment  against 
that  of  the  Church, — who  have  exercised  the  unlimited  right 
of  private  judgment  in  regard  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

The  first  of  these  were  the  Gnostics,  who  arose  in  the 
first  century,  and  who  either  rejected  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture entirely,  or  else  put  an  interpretation  upon  them  dif- 
ferent from  the  one  received  by  the  Church.*  In  the  second 
century,  among  others  were  the  Tatianists,  \\ho  substituted 
water  for  wine  in  the  Eucharist,  and  forbade  matrimony,! — 
the  Severians,  who  rejected  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and 
all  the  Epistles,!  and  the  Artemonites  who  mutilated  all 
Scriptures. §  In  the  third  century  arose  the  Manicheans^ 
who  rejected  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, doubted  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  and  held  the 
Epistles  to  be  adulterated. |[  All  these  were  accounted 
heretics  by  the  primitive  Church,  and  have  been  regarded  so 
in  all  subsequent  times. 

But  we  cannot  dwell  upon  the  early  periods  of  the 
Church,  and  coming  down  to  modern  times  wall  confine  our 
attention  mainly  to  the  opinions  of  German  theologians  and 
commentators,  with  whom  the  reviewer  expresses  so  strong  a 
sympathy,  in  doing  which  we  shall  see  w^hat  are  some  of 
the  peculiarities  of  the  German  faith.  We  say  "  German 
faith,"  because  what  they  hold  in  common  with  all  chris- 
tians, cannot  be  considered  as  peculiar  to  them. 

We  begin  with  the  Pentateuch.  Among  the  modern  Ger- 
man theologians,  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  the 
work  of  Moses,  has  been  denied  altogether  by  De  Wette, 
t)octor  and  Professor  of  Theology  at  Basle,  who  tells  us  that 
it  is  a  mythos,  possessed  of  no  historical  value. IT  In  this 
opinion  he  is  followed  by  Bauer,  Divinity  Lecturer  at  Tu- 

*  Murd.  xMosh.  I.  112.  t  Iren.  i.  30.     Esub.  iii.  29.     Mosh.  I.  174. 

%  Euseb.  iii.  29.  §  lb.  v.  28.  ||  Mosh.  I.  323. 

H  Introd.  O.  T.  §  149,  etc.     Hist.  Crit.  Introd.  O.  T.  ^  397,  etc. 


24 

bingen,*  VonBohlen,  late  Professor  of  Oriental  Languages 
at  KfEingsberg.t  Vatke,  Divinity  Lecturer  in  the  University 
of  Berlin,!  Hartmann,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Rostock, § 
all  of  whom  are  said  to  have  followed  in  the  steps  of  the 
infidel  Volney.]]  Others  allow  that  Moses  wrote  a  part  of 
it, IT  as  Eichorn,  Lecturer  on  Biblical  criticism  at  Gottin- 
gen,**  Stauedlin,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Gottingen,tt 
Herbstjjt  Bleek,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Bonn,§§  arid 
Jahn,   Professor  of  Biblical  Archrology  at  Vienna. ||1! 

It  is  common  to  ascribe  this  spirit  of  scepticism  to  the 
superior  learning  of  the  Germans,  but  Hegstenberg,  one  of 
their  own  countrymen,  says  that  it  arises  from  a  "  shallow 
criticism,"  and  "  pantheistic  tendencies,"  and  that  thei  man 
who  should  employ  such  arguments  against  the  authentici- 
ty of  a  profane  author  would  be  a  laughing  stock  to  men  of 
science. IT  fl 

And  those  who  have  proceeded  so  far  with  the  beginning 
of  the  Bible,  have  gone  on  in  like  manner  with  the  remain- 
der. Thus  De  Wette  tells  us,  the  book  of  Joshua  was  not 
written  until  long  after  his  death.***     Spinoza  and  Le  Clerc, 


*  Hengstenberg's  Auth.  Pent,  in  Bib.  Rep.  XII.  486. 

t  Gen.  Introd.  O.  T.  §  ^i,  etc.  lb.  "  Von  B.  was  a  rationalist  of  the  mud- 
diest water."     Bib.  Rep.  [N.  S.]  IX.  495. 

t  Bib  Theol.  §  183,  etc.  §  Hengstenberg.  ubi  sup. 

\\  Jahn  Introd.  O.  T.  Par.  II.  §  13.  n.  North.  Am.  Rev.  X.  117,  where"  the 
origin  of  this  "  German  Divinity"  is  traced  to  the  English  infidel  writers.  The 
same  view  is  taken  by  Dr.  Pusey  in  his  Historical  Inquiry,  &c.  p.  124,  etc.,  and 
in  Stauedlin,  Hist,  of  Ration,  and  Supernat.  110—118,  284—287,  and  by  Rose, 
State  Prot.  Germ.  50—54. 

IT  This  is  the  view  of  Hobbcs,  Leviathan,  Par.  III.  c.  xxxiii.  p.  200. 

»*  Introd.  O.  T.  §  234,  etc. 

tt  Genuineness  Laws  of  Moses  Defended.  III.  §  225 — 237.  Contrib.  Philos; 
Hist.  Rel.  II.  §  235,  etc. 

tl  Hengsten.  Auth.  Pent,  ubi  sub. 

§§  Contr.  Investig.  Pent.  Bib.  Rep.  (1824)  1,  etc. 

nil  Introd.  O.  T.  Par.  §§  15— 18. 

tir  Auth.  Pent.  Bib.  Rep.  XL  418,  437,  XII.  453. 

***  Introd.  O.T.§§  166,  167. 


25 

that  the  book  of  Judges  was  not  written  till  the  tinf\e  o^  thd 
Babylonish  captivity.*  Bertholdt,  that  the  book  of  Ruth 
is  a  fictitious  narrative. f  Semler,  De  Wette,  Bauer,  and 
others,  that  the  two  books  of  Chronicles  are  not  to  be  credit- 
ed.|  De  Wette,  that  the  book  of  Esther  ought  not  to  have 
been  admitted  into  the  Canon. §  Vogel,  that  Ezra,  JYehe- 
miah  and  Chronicles  are  to  be  rejected. ||  Stauedlin,  that 
the  book  o^  Job  was  not  written  until  the  time  of  Solomon. TT 
Taylor,  that  many  of  the  Psalms  are  merely  translations 
of  Syro-Phcenician  odes.**  Eichorn  and  De  Wette,  that 
Solomon  was  the  compiler,  not  the  author,  of  the  book 
of  Proverbs.ii  Eichorn,  that  the  Song  of  Solomo7i  was 
composed  much  later  than  his  time. ||  De  Wette  and  Kno- 
bel,  that  the  book  of  Ecclesiustes  was  written,  not  by  Sol- 
omon, but  by  some  one  after  the  return  from  the  Babylonish 
captivity. §§  Koppe,  Gesenius,  Doederlin,  Eichorn,  Paulus, 
Rosenmuller,  De  Wette,  and  Bertholdt,  that  some  portion 
of  the  book  of  ISaiah,  at  least,  is  not  genuine. HH  Grimm, 
that  the  book  of  Jonah  is  a  dream. TTH  Semler,  Michaelis, 
Herder,  Nieraeyer,  and  Eichorn,  that  it  is  a  parable.*** 
These  are  the  opinions  of  those  critics  who  stand  at  the 

*  Jahn  Introd.  O.  T.  Par.  II.  §  51 ,  n.  t  Introd.  O.  T.  S.  2237. 

t  Jahn  Introd.  O.  T.  Par.  II.  §  56,  n.  Semler  was  Doctor  and  Proffessor  of 
Theolog-y  at  Halle,  and  also  at  the  head  of  the  Theological  Seminary. 

§  Jahn  Introd.  O.  T.  §  68,  n.  ||  Schroek,  VIII. 

IT  Contrib.  Philos.  Hist.  Rel.  II.  §  235,  etc. 

**  Diegesis,  159.  This  man  was  not  a  German,  but  an  admirer  and  disciple  of 
them.  tt  Eich.  Introd.  O.  T.  §  635.     De  Wette  Introd.  O.  T.  §  281. 

-  n  Introd.  O.  T.  §  218. 

§§  Knob.  Com.  on  Escles.  This  author  is  Professorof  Divinity  at  the  Universi- 
ty  of  Breslau. 

nil  Jahn  Introd.  O.  T.  Par.  II.  §  104.  Doederlin  is  Profesfcor  of  Divinity  in 
the  University  of  Jena.     Paulus  is  Professor  of  Theology  in  that  of  Heidleburg. 

HIT  Proph.  Jonas. §  61. 

***  Sem.  Appar.  Lib.  Interp.  O.  T.  271.  Michael.  Trans.  O.  T.  XI.  §  lOI.  Her. 
Stud.  Thcol.  §  136.  Nieme.  Charac.  Bib.  Eich.  Introd.  IV.  §  352,  etc.  Michaelis 
and  Herder  were  Theologians  and  Professors  at  Gottmgen.     Niemeyer  at  Halle.- 

4 


26 


head  of  the  liberalists,  or  rationalists  of  Germany, — opin- 
ions, which  form  the  characteristic  of  that  German  theology, 
for  which  the  reviewer  avows  his  preferences.  Nor  has  the 
New  Testament  fared  better  at  their  hands.  Schulz,* 
Schultus,t  WilkcjJ  and  Fischer, §  have  doubted  the  genu- 
ineness o{  Matthew.  Gratz,|]  supposes  it  to  be  a  mere  trans- 
lation of  a  Syro-Chaldaic  gospel,  while  Gieseler  attempts  to 
prove  that  it  was  copied  from  an  oral  gospel,  or  complied 
from  tradition, II  and  Tholuck  concedes  that  Matthew^  Mark, 
and  Luke  were  all  compiled  from  tradition.**  Evanson 
rejects  Matthew^  Mark  and  John.,  entirely. ft  GratzJJ 
and  Bertholdl§§  imagine  that  the  gospel  of  St.  Luke  has 
been  much  interpolated  and  altered.  Bretschneider||||  de- 
clares that  the  gospel  of  5"^.  John  was  not  written  by  the 
Apostle  whose  name  it  bears,  nor  indeed  by  an  eye-witness, 
and  we  cannot  be  sure  of  his  accuracy.  And  Vogel,  Horst, 
Balenstadt  and  Cludius  have  advanced  the  same  opin- 
ions.ITTT  De  Wette***  has  his  doubts  and  suspicions  in 
regard  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Semlerftf  rejects 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  while  SchottlH  supposes  them  to  be  fragments 
of  some  other  Epistles,  added  to  this,  piece  by  piece.  Sem- 
ler§§§  and  Weber|||[||  divide  the  second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  into  several  shorter  ones,  written  at  different 
times.     SchleiermarcherHHH  denies  that  St.  Paul  wrote  the 

*  Christ.  Doct.  of  the  Holy  Euch.  1824.     This  author  is  Professor  of  Theology 
at  Breslau. 

t  Bib.  Exeget.  Repert.  1824.  t  Winer's  Journal,  1826. 

§  Introd.  Dogmat.  1828.  ||  Essay  on  Orig.     Three  first  Gospels.  1812, 

IT  Essay  Crit.  Hist.     Orig.  etc.  IBIS,  in  Hug.  Par.  ii.  §  22. 
♦*  Introd.  Com.  Evan.  John,  §5.  tt  Dissonance  Gospels,  1792. 

n  Orig.  Gosp.  and  Hist.  Crit.  Com.  Mat.  1821. 

§§  Introd.  Hist.  Crit.  III.  §  329.  ||i|  Prob.  Evang.  and  Ep.  John,  1S29, 

^ir  Stuart's  Notes  on  Hug.  Introd.  N.  T.  722.  ***  Introd.  N.  T.  §  114. 

ttt  Introd.  N.  T.  §  59.         Ht  Diss.  doub.  Ep.  Rom.         §§§  Paraphrase  2d  Cor. 
mill  Program.  Num.  Ep.  Cor.  1798. 
ir'Hir  Ep.  Paul.  Timo.  1837. 


27 

first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  Eichorn*  tells  us  that  St.  Paul 
could  not  have  written  either  of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  nor 
that  to  Titus.  Lutherf  doubted  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James,  declaring  it  to  be  "  a  downright  strawy- 
Epistle."  The  first  Epistle  of  Peter  has  been  doubted  by 
Cludiusl  and  De  Wette,§  the  second  by  Ulmann,||  and  al- 
so by  Calvin,  Schmidt,  Welcker,  Guerike  and  Eichorn. H 
And  finally,  Strauss  has  attempted  to  show,  that  no  such 
person  as  Jesus  Christ  ever  existed,  that  his  history  is  a 
mythos,  a  production  or  development  of  the  religious  mind 
of  the  Christian  Church,  as  Vatke  had  attempted  to  show, 
that  Moses  was  a  production  or  development  of  the  relig- 
ious mind  of  the  Jewish  Church.** 

A  few  specimens  of  the  modes  of  interpretation  adopted 
by  those  men  w^ho  do  not  reject  the  Bible,  as  spurious,  will 
serve  to  throw  additional  light  upon  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
German  theologians.  Eichorn  treats  the  command  to  offer 
up  Isaac,  as  a  dream,  and  the  discovery  of  the  ram  caught 
in  the  bushes,  as  a  lucky  accident.ff  The  scene  at  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law  in  Mount  Sinai,  he  degrades  even  more  than 
this.  Moses,  he  says,  went  up  and  built  a  fire  on  the  top  ot 
Sinai,  v/hen  there  happened  to  come  up  a  tremendous  thun- 
der shower,  whereupon  Moses  gave  out  that  the  Lord  had 
spoken  to  him,  and  proclaimed  the  laws  that  he  had  com- 


*  Introd.  N.  T.  III.  Par.  i.  §  216,  etc. 

t  Pref.  Ep.  James.     "  Elne  Strohem  Epistel."  +  Orig.  Christ.  1808. 

§  Introd.  N.  T.  in  loco.  ||  On  2d  Ep.  Peter,  1821. 

IT  Stuart's  Notes  on  Hug.  Introd,  N.  T.  772. 

**  Hengsten.  Auth.  Pent.  Bib.  Rep.  XII.  471.  This  doctrine  of  development 
has  made  its  appearance  in  Germany  under  various  forms.  In  the  philosophy  of 
SchelHng  and  Hegel,  the  Universe,  is  God  developing  HIMSELF,  by  a  series  of 
eternal  unfoldings.  (Murd.  Ger.  Philos.  104.  Transcendentalism  p.  28,  on  theau- 
thority  of  Rixncr,  Marheineke,  and  Bretchsneider.)  According  to  Vatke,  Moses 
is  a  development  of  the  religious  mind  of  the  Jews,  (Hengsten,  Auth.  Pent.  Bib. 
Rep.,)  and  according  to  Strauss,  Jesus  Christ  is  a  development  of  the  religious  mmd 
of  the  Christian,  (Life  of  Jesus,  &c.,)  while,  according  to  Moehler,  the  Roman, 
ism  of  the  nineteenth  century,  is  a  development  of  Christianity  itself.  (Symbolism 
&.C.)  ft  Bibliothek.  I.  §  45. 


28 

piled.*  Ammon,  a  professor  of  theology  at  Erlangen, 
represents  the  miracle  of  Christ's  walking  on  the  sea,  as 
wadingin  as  far  as  he  could,  and  then  swimming. f  Thiess 
makes  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, nothing  but  a  sudden  gust  of  wind  accompanied  by 
a  curious  electric  -phenomenon.!  With  him,  too,  the 
cripple  healed  by  Peter,  was  no  cripple,  and  the  Apostle, 
by  threatening,  compelled  him  to  walk.§  He  supposes,  too, 
that  Ananias  fainted  from  fright,  while  some  of  his  cotem- 
poraries  represent  Peter  as  stabbing  him.||  Paulus  calls 
the  pretended  miracle  of  the  fish  and  tribute  money  paltry 
and  absurd,^  the  five  loaves  and  five  thousand  he  teaches 
was  no  miracle,  as  Christ  only  persuaded  those  who  had 
food  to  give  to  them  that  had  none.** 

The  doctrine  of  Reserve  in  Communicating  Religious 
Knowledge^  has  also  been  advocated  in  its  worst  forms. 
Doederlin,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Jena,  virtually  recom- 
mends a  system  of  fraud  in  hiding  their  intentions  from  the 
people,  especially  in  regard  to  explaining  doctrines  not  fit 
for  the  times,  and  attempts  to  defend  his  course,  by  the  prac^; 
tice  of  St.  Paul,  and  even  of  our  Lord  himself-ft  Wegschei- 
der  teaches,  that  it  is  enough,  if  their  divines  follow  the 
"  newest  and  best  views,"  notwithstanding  their  symbolical 
books. t;}:  And  even  the  historian  Schroekh,  recognizes  the 
necessity  of  altering  their  "  belief  as  often  as  any  new 
views  require  it."§§ 

It  would  be  interesting  to  inquire,  particularly,  what  sysr 

*  Bibliolhek.  §  76.  t  Pref.  Ernest.  Inst.  Interp.  p.  12. 

X  Com.  on  Acts,  ii.  §  Com.  on  Acts,  iii. 

II  N.  T.  Kopp.  III.  ii.  355-357.  Those  who  wish  to  see  numerous  instances  of 
such  interpretations,  may  consult  State  of  Prot.  in  Germ.,  by  Rev.  H.  J.  Rose, 
2d  Ed.  125-166.  IT  Com.  II.  157.  **  lb.  300. 

tt  Opusc.  Theol.  p.  161.     State  Prot.  Germ.  25. 

X\  Inst.  Theol.  Crit.  Dogm.  in  Prot.  Germ.  24 

$§  VIII.  B.  iii.  Div.  4.  Par.  3. 


29 

tem  of  morals,  such  views  of  religion  would  beget.  But 
we  can  only  speak  with  the  utmost  brevity  upon  this  point, 
A  few  short  extracts  are  all  we  can  give.  Henke,  Professor 
of  Theology  at  Helemstadt,  says,  that  "  monogamy  [having 
but  one  wife]  and  the  prohibition  of  extra-matrimonial 
connexions,  [concubinage,]  must  be  reckoned  among  the 
remains  of  monachism, — that  this  doctrine  rests  on  a  blind 
faith.*  Cannibach,  a  Superintendent  (Bishop  in  form, 
but  not  in  fact)  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  says,  "  A  moderate 
sensual  enjoyment  of  love  out  ot  marriage,  is  no  more  im- 
moral than  in  marriage,  and  that  it  is  to  be  avoided  merely 
because  it  shocks  the  customs  of  the  persons  with  w^hom 
we  live,  and  because  the  excesses  committed  in  it  are  often 
punished  by  the  loss  of  reputation  and  health."!  De  Wette, 
after  the  murder  of  Kotzebue,  writing  to  the  mother  of 
Sand,  the  murderer,  says,  that  "  the  spirit  of  faith  and  con- 
fidence with  which  the  deed  [the  murder]  was  performed, 
is  a  good  sign  of  the  times;"  even  though  he  admits,  that 
^'  the  deed,  considered  in  a  general  point  of  view,  is  immor- 
al."! Comment  on  things  like  these,  is  unnecessary.  A 
state  of  public  feeling  that  would  tolerate  such  publications 
by  a  "  christian  minister,"  must  be  as  far  from  soundness, 
as  the  men  from  orthodoxy.  And  yet,  these  are  the  men 
who  have  the  reviewer's  sympathies! 

These  are  specimens  of  the  lengths  to  which  the  private 
judgment  of  men  reputed  for  their  learning,  has  led  them, 
when  they  had  thrown  off  all  Church  authority,  and  renounc- 
ed their  allegiance  to  the  duly  organized  body  of  Christ. 
Some  of  these,  too,  have  adopted  the  religious  philosophy 
pf  Schelling  or  Hegel,    and  resolve  God  into  nature,  and 

*  Euseb.  Par.  I.  i.  No.  3  in  Rose.  Germ.  Prot,  171. 

tCrit.  Pract.  Christ.  185.  If  the  disciples  acted  in  accordance  with  the  teach, 
ing  of  the  master,  there  must  have  been,  if  not,  "  a  ravening  wolf-hood,"  at  least, 


30 

elevate  Nature  into  the  rank  of  the  Deity.*  And  these 
are  the  men  for  which  the  reviewer  professes  so  much  re- 
gard, and  with  whom  he  manifests  so  much  sympathy. 
And  these  are  the  books  which  are  brought  to  this  country 
by  hundreds,  and  fill  the  Theological  Libraries  of  the  New 
School  Seminaries.  These  are  the  fountains  from  which 
their  theology  is,  in  a  great  measure,  to  be  drawn. f  And 
can  we  doubt  the  result? 

It  may  be  said  that  a  better  day  has  dawned  upon  Ger- 
many, that  many  learned  and  able  advocates  of  divine  rev- 
elation in  its  integrity,  have  arisen,  and  that  we  have  some 
of  them  translated  into  English.  This  is,  to  an  extent, 
true.  But  several  of  the  most  important  and  popular  of 
these  works  were  written  by  Roman  Catholics,  as  Jahn,  and 
Hug.  But  these  are  not  uninfluenced  by  the  general  spirit 
of  unbelief  of  their  countrymen.  Neither  Jahn  nor  Hug  can 
be  implicitly  followed  by  any  orthodox  Christian.  So  among 
the   popular    Protestant    writers    of   Germany, — Tholuck 

*  Biedermann,  who  is  a  philosopher,  but  not  a  theologian,  is  unwilling  to  allow 
that  the  philosophy  of  Germany  has  produced  any  considerable  effect  upon  its  the- 
ology.  (Germ.  Philos.)  Hengstenberg,  who  is  a  theologian,  is  evidently  of  a  dif- 
ferent opinion,  (Contrib.  Introd.  O.  T.)  And  Ranch,  who  was  both  a  philosopher 
and  theologian,  distinctly  asserts  that  the  Wolfian,  Jacobian,  and  Hegelian  phi. 
losophy  has  been  felt  in  every  department  of  theological  literature,  and  that  it  is 
perceptible  m  the  Church  Historians.  (Bib.  Rep.  X.  307 — 314.)  And  that  Rauch's 
own  theology  was  highly  tinctured  by  the  Hegelian  philosophy,  is  perfectly  cer. 
tain.  (Murd.  Germ.  Fhilos.  191— 201,  and  an  ineffectual  defence  of  Dr.  R.  in  Bib. 
Rep.  [N.  S.]  X.  418 — 431.)  It  is  believed,  also,  that  Kant's  religious  philosophy, , 
especially  touching  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  aided  the  cause  of  Rational- 
ism.    State  Prot.  Germ.  184—190. 

t  Some  of  the  works  mentioned  above,  have  been  translated  into  English,  others 
form  the  materials,  from  which  books  are  complied.  This  is  the  case  with  Cole- 
man's Antiquities,  based  principally  upon  the  works  of  Augusti.  Some  opinion 
of  his  orthodoxy  may  be  formed  from  an  article  in  his  Theological  Journal,  No. 
IX.  196 — 207,  (1801,)  in  which  the  writer  takes  the  ground,  that  the  pure  doc- 
trine  of  Christ  is  not  found  in  the  New  Testament,  that  tlie  Apostles  often  mis- 
understood their  master's  meaning, — that  (he  documents  of  the  New  Testament 
contain  contradictions,  and  finally  asks,  whether  it  would  not  be  better  if  we  had 
no  written  documents  in  regard  to  Christ  ? 


31 

was,  and  we  suppose  still  is,  a  believer  in  the  final  restora- 
tion of  the  ^vicked,  and  has  declared  the  Trinity  to  be  no 
fundamental  article  of  faith,  but  an  invention  of  the  School- 
men.* And  the  learned  and  popular  Neander  holds  all 
the  elements  of  pure  fanaticism.  His  peculiar  "  religious 
philosophy"  is  seen  in  all  his  works.  Belonging  to  the  school 
of  Jacobi,  he  regards  faith  "  as  a  natural  instinct,  a  knowing 
from  immediate  mental  feeling,  a  direct  perception  of  the  true 
and  supersensible,  without  any  intervening  proof."!  In 
other  words  he  "  makes  faith  rest  on  conviction,  and  con- 
viction on  feeling," — the  very  essence  of  all  fanaticism. 
Consequently,  he  does  not  acknowledge  the  idea  of  the 
Christian  Church,  in  the  common  sense  of  the  term," — "  is 
in  favour  of  no  constitution," — "  considers  the  use  of  sym- 
bolical books  [Creeds  and  Confessions]  a  misfortune,  limit- 
ing the  free  cultivation  of  individual  piety."  In  his  opin- 
ion, "  it  matters  little  whether  a  man  is  an  Arian,  a  Nestori- 
an,  or  a  Calvinist,  if  he  be  only  pious;"f  while  he  himself 
is  a  believer  in  the  Sabellian  heresy. § 

But  there  is  another  fact,  worthy  of  careful  notice,  in  this 
connection.  Coincident  with  the  improvement  in  the  Ger- 
man Schools  of  Theology,  was  a  revival  of  the  study  of 
Christian    Antiquity,  and  the  approximation  to   orthodoxy, 


*  Doellinger  Cont.  Kortlig's  Church  Hist.  944.  Mem.  Moehl.  35. 

t  Murd.  Germ.  PhUos.  131.  Ruuch  on  Church  Histor.  Germ.  Bib.  Rep.  X. 
313,314. 

t  Rauch,  lb.  Similar  to  this  statement  is  the  view  taken  by  Neander,  in  his 
Introduction  to  a  forth  coming;  work  on  the  Primitive  Church,  by  Rev.  Lymair 
Coleman.  What  influence  'Ncdndei's  early  Jewish  prejudices  may  have  had  upon 
his  mind,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  it  is  a  little  remarkable  that  his  conversion  to' 
Christianity  should  render  his  views  of  external  polity,  and  organization,  the  very 
antipodes  of  what  they  were  before.  The  opinions  of  Neander,  in  regard  to  the 
primitive  Church,  are  echoed  in  the  new  "  Congregational  Catechism,"  just  pub./ 
lished. 

§  Doell.  Church  Hist.  344.     Mem.  Moehl.  35. 


32 

ard  of  the  primitive  ages  in  questions  of  Church  history,  and 
Biblical  criticism.*  It  has  been  those  same  "  musty  fath- 
ers," whom  the  reviewer  denounces  as  "  blind  guides," 
and  which  are  so  much  slighted,  condemned,  and  reviled  by 
his  associates,  that  have  been  one  principal  cause  in  intro- 
ducing this  new  era  into  German  theology.  But  that  com- 
munity must  be  far,  infinitely  far,  from  a  sound  state  of 
Christian  feeling,  when  the  best  talent  it  can  afford,  is 
obliged  to  be  summoned  forth  to  defend  the  belief  in  the  ex- 
istence of  a  Saviour,  against  such  Christians  as  David 
Frederic  Strauss. 

Even  so  late  as  1841,  Bruno  Bauer,  a  licentiate  of  Prot- 
estant Theology  at  the  University  of  Bonn,  published  a 
work  entitled  "  Criticism  on  the  Evangelical  History  of 
Synoptics,"  which,  in  its  licentious  impiety,  entirely  sur- 
passes the  infamous  work  of  Strauss — in  which  he  openly 
advocates  the  pantheism  of  Hegel, — denies  the  personal 
existence  of  God,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  of 
course,  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the  wHole  Gospel 
history.  And  yet,  in  the  opinion  of  Marheineke,  Professor 
of  Theology  at  Berlin,  Middledorpf,  Professor  at  Breslau, 
and  one  half  of  the  theological  faculties  of  Koenigsberg  and 
Griefswalde,  this  work  "  is  compatible  with  the  essence  of 
Christianity,  though  opposed   to  its  ecclesiastical  develop*- 

*  Prof.  Twesten,  Divinity  Lecturer  at  Berlin,  tells  us,  "  that  the  time  is  past, 
in  which  Christian  Antiquity  furnishes  materials  only  for  the  exercise  of  critical 
acumen.  Much  has  thus  become  intelligible  to  us,  which  hitherto  was  a  sealed 
book,  and  in  the  same  proportion  that  it  has  been  brought  nearer  to  us,  we  feel 
ourselves  attracted  by  the  character  and  efforts  of  antiquity."  State  Prot.  Germ. 
230.  The  revival  of  the  study  of  the  Fathers,  in  Protestant  Germany,  was  so 
entirely  the  work  of  Planck,  who  was  appointed  professor  of  Theology  at  Gottin- 
gen,  in  1784,  that  he  has  been  said  to  introduce  it.     Mem.  Moehl.  65. 

Another  important  fact,  which  has  tended  to  the  restoration  of  Protestant  ortho^ 
doxy,  has  been  the  comparative  soundness  of  the  Roman  Clergy,  who  have  been 
continually  in  their  midst.  Engelhardt  Church  Hist.  i.  312.  The  Biographer  of 
Moehler,  supposes  this  to  be  the  main  cause,  p.  43. 


33 

ment."  *  And  these  are  the  men,  and  this  the  theology, 
•which  commands  the  admiration  of  our  reviewer  !  The 
praises  of  such  a  man  are  to  be  deprecated  lest  they  render 
one's  faith  suspicious. 

II.  The  second  point  brought  forward  by  our  reviewer,  is 
the  state  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  as  compared  with  other 
Protestant  denominations.  The  Bishop  represents  it,  as 
prosperous,  vigorous,  and  upon  the  whole,  united  and  peace- 
ful. The  reviewer  on  the  contrary,  would  have  his  readers 
suppose  that  it  is  all  discord  and  strife,  confusion  worse 
confounded — Bishop  against  Bishop — Convention  against 
Convention! — Priest  against  people,  and  people  against 
Priest.  That  there  are  no  differences  of  opinion  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  is  not  pretended.  That  these  are  not  deba- 
ted with  warmth  and  vigour,  and  that  they  are  not  regarded 
by  the  respective  parties  as  highly  important,  is  not  preten- 
ded. But  to  compare  them  with  the  schisms  and  discords 
and  strifes  and  divisions  in  the  various  Protestant  bodies 
around  us,  requires,  if  not  what  our  reviewer  calls  "  a  sweet 
incapacity  of  self-understanding,"  at  least,  an  incapacity  to 
judge  of  the  facts.  In  the  Episcopal  Church,  difference's  of 
opinion  are  discussed,  warmly,  ardently,  it  may  be,  but  they 
produce  no  division.  Not  so  in  other  Protestant  bodies. 
Asserting  as  they  do,  the  unlimited  right  of  private  judgment, 
and  carrying  it  out  in  practice,  every  difference  produces 
division.  Already  there  are  nearly  fifty  kinds  of  Baptists, 
towards  a  score  of  Presbyterians,  half  a  dozen  kinds  of  In- 
dependents and  Congregationalists,  and  as  many  sorts  of 

"*  Opinion  of  the  Evangelical  Theological  Faculties  of  the  Prussian  Universities 
in  case  of  Bruno  Bauer,  Berlin,  1842.  And  the  suspension  of  Bauer  has  beense. 
verely  censured  by  many  calling  themselves  Christians.     Am.  Quar.  Jour.  xv.  194. 

t  The  passage  (p.  156)  "  one  diocese  denounces  the  proceedings  of  another, 
one  Bishop  travels  the  breadth  of  the  land,  to  see  if  some  leaven  of  the  true  gospel 
may  not  possibly  be  saved  in  the  diocese  of  another,"  exhibits  a  cliaracteristic  dis- 
regard  of  facts.  Besides,  whatever  show  of  foundation  there  might  be  for  the  as- 
sertion, arose  subsequently  to  the  delivery  of  the  Charge,  and  even  now  has  no 
existence  in  Connecticut. 

5 


34 

Methodists.  Among  other  Protestant  bodies,  we  find  Trin- 
itarians, Sabellians,  high  Arians  and  low  Arians,  Socinians, 
Unitarians,  and  Humanitarians,  Universalists,  Restoration- 
ists  and  Annihilationists,  Calvinistsof  all  sorts  high  and  low, 
Antinomians  and  Arminians,  Pelagians  and  Predestinarians. 
But  the  reviewer,  in  order  to  set  aside  the  inference  which 
these  divisions  seem  to  authorize,  tells  us,  that  "  the  Con- 
gregationalists,  Presbyterians,  Dutch  Reformed,  Baptists 
and  Methodists,  hold  a  real  substantial  agreement  of  opin- 
ion, as  a  generous  and  philosophic  criticism  would  amply 
show."*  What  the  reviewer  means  by  "  a  generous  and 
philosophic  criticism"  we  do  not  pretend  to  understand. 
But  it  would  certainly  be  a  "  generous  criticism,"  that 
should  show  the  "  substantial  agreement"  of  the  believers 
and  disbelievers  in  a  limited  atonement, — in  the  bond- 
age or  freedom  of  the  human  will, — in  the  perseverance 
of  the  saints  and  possibility  of  falling  from  grace, — in 
man's  activity  or  passivity  in  the  great  work  of  spiritu^ 
al  regeneration, — in  the  necessity  of  immersion  in  bap- 
tism,— in  the  lawfulness  of  infant  baptism, — in  the  ex- 
istence of  a  divinely  constituted  ministry,  or  in  no  minis- 

*  N.  E.  II.  155.  Whether  the  reviewer  intends  to  include  the  German  theolo- 
gians, in  this  "  substantial  agreement,"  does  not  clearly  appear.  We  can  see  no 
reason  why  he  may  not,  since  his  "  generous  criticism"  can  reconcile  almost  any 
differences.  In  doing  it,  he  would  only  have  to  adopt  the  reasoning  of  Marhei, 
neke,  Professor  of  theology  at  Berlin,  of  Middlcdorpf,  Professor  of  theology  at 
Bre&lau,  and  of  one  half  the  entire  theological  faculties  pf  the  Universities  of 
Koeningsberg,  and  Griefswalde,  who  have  said  that  the  Hegelian  pantheism  of 
Bruno  Bauer,  and  his  open  rejection  of  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the  whole 
Gospel  liistory,  is  compatible  with  the  essence  of  Christianity.  (Opin.  Evang. 
Theol.  Facul.  Prus.  Univ.  Berlin,  1842.)  But  if  he  excludes  the  Kationalists  and 
Pantheists,  his  "  generous  criticism"  will  still  be  needed,  "  for,"  as  asks  an  emi- 
nent German  Protestant,  "  does  not  Neander  teach  very  differently  from  Tholuck  ? 
And  Tholuck  differently  from  Hengstenberg  ?  And  Hengstenberg  differently 
from  Krummacher?  And  Kriunmacher  differently  from  Draeske?  And 
Draeske  differently  from  Harms  ?  And  Harms  differently  from  Ullman  ?  And 
Ullman  differently  from  Olshausen  ?  And  so  forth.  We  are  wont  to  speak  of  a 
Protesttint  Church  ;  but  where  is  it  ?"  Protestantism  in  its  self-dissolution  by  a 
Protestant.     Shaffhausen,  1843. 


35 

try  at  all.  These  are  a  few  of  the  differences  that  are  td 
be  brought  into  "  substantial  agreement"  by  "  a  generous 
criticism."  Where  he  can  match  them  by  any  differences 
of  opinion  in  the  Church,  we  know  not.  Certainly  the 
pamphlet  to  which  he  refers,*  with  all  its  unfairness,  and 
with  its  garbled  extracts,  presents  no  parallel. 

But  in  the  reviewer's  own  denomination,  the  agreement 
of  which  he  boasts,  can  be  made  out  only  by  his  "  generous 
and  philosophic  criticism."  It  is  by  this,  that  he  proves 
the  ''  substantial  agreement"  of  New  Haven  Pelagianismj 
with  East  Windsor  Calvinism,  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
JYeio  Englander,  with  those  of  the  Bih'.ical  Repertory,  and 
of  those  ministers  of  the  same  city  who  will  not  exchange- 
pulpits, — and  of  the  semi-Arianism  of  some,  with  the  Trin- 
itarianism  of  others.  And  it  is  this  same  "  generous  criti- 
cism," which  enables  him  to  say  that  there  is  "  more  relig- 
ious truth  in  Germany,"  than  in  the  Church  of  England^ 
(p.  154,)  and  that  the  "  German  ministry  is  not  as  corrupt 
as  the  clergy  of  England."  (p.  154.) 

The  reviewer,  in  common  with  his  associates,  denies  one 
important  influence,  attributed  by  Churchmen  to  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer, — its  tendency  to  j^reserve  the  Church  from 
heresy.  (II.  156.  etc.)  This  has  been  particularly  urged 
by  some  of  his  associates.  Thus  Rev.  Dr.  Hawesf  says, 
"  the  reformed  Churches  of  Germany  and  Switzerland, 
once  had,  and  many  of  them  now  have,  a  correct  creed, — s- 
Scriptural  formularies  of  doctrine,  to  which  all  who  minister- 
ed at  the  altar,  or  come  to  the  communion,  were  required 
to  give  their  consent."  And  Rev.  Dr.  Bacon  asks, J  wheth- 
er such  formularies  "  have  kept  out  error,  at  Geneva?  in 
Germany?  in  England?  in  Scotland?"  And  because  error 
has  crept  in,  in  spite  of  Creeds  and  Confessions,  it  is  infer- 
red that  they  are  nd  preservative  against  error. 

*  "  One  faith,"  or  Bishbp  Doaiie  vS.  Bishop  Mcllvairlej  &c.,  by  a  Presbyterian, 
t  Trib.  Fil.  (2d  Ed.)  p.  85.  t  Man.  177. 


36 

This  reasoning  goes  upon  the  mistaken  notion,  that  sub- 
scription to  these  Creeds  and  Confessions,  is  now  requi'-ed. 
As  early  as  1660,  Frederick  William,  Elector  of  Braden- 
burgh,  introduced  the  practice  of  subscribing  to  the  Sym- 
bolical books,*  "  so  far  as  they  agree  with  scripture," 
which  was  confirmed  by  Frederick  I.  of  Prussia,  in  1713, 
for  which,  more  recently,  the  promise  to  teach  the  people 
according  to  Holy  Scripture,  without  any  reference  to  the 
Symbolical  books,  has  been  substituted.!  The  Liturgy, 
also  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  has  for  some  time  been  dis- 
pensed with,' at  the  pleasure  of  the  minister,!  so  that  the 
Churches  of  Germany,  are  in  fact,  and  for  a  long  time  have 
been  without  any  Creeds  or  formularies,  to  which  their  as- 
sent is  required,  or  which  are  considered  as  binding  on 
those,  even,  who  subscribe  to  them. 

Similar,  also,  is  the  state  of  things  in  Geneva.  The 
Consensus,  or  "  Form  of  Agreement,"  formerly  subscribed 
at  Geneva,  fell  into  disuse  as  early  as  1706§.  In  1725,  the 
Company  of  Pastors  dispensed  with  the  Canon  requiring 
candidates  for  the  ministry  to  subscribe  the  Helvetic  Con- 
fession, and  substituted  a  mere  profession  of  belief  in  the 
Bible.  In  1788  the  Catechism  of  Calvin  was  displaced 
and  another  substituted,  and  in  1807  the  Liturgy  was  ex- 
purgated on  Unitarian  principles. || 

Indeed,  in  both  Germany  and  Geneva,  one  of  the  first 
signs  of  doctrinal  declension,  was  the  setting  aside,  or  ex- 
plaining away  subscriptions  to  Creeds  or  Confessions,  or 
subscribing  "  so  far  as  they  agree  with  Scripture,"  or  "  for 
substance  of  doctrine."  Of  their  present  state  we  have 
not  time  to  speak,  and  we  must  leave  this  head   with  a 


*  These  are  the  Confession  of  Augsburg, — Melanchtlion's  Defence  of  it, — the 
articles  of  Smalkald,  Luther's  two  Catechisms,  and  the  Formula  Concordiee. 
t  Rose  Germ.  Prot.  15—20.     Schroekh,  Church  Hist.  VIII.  192. 
t  lb.  20,  21.  §  Mosh.  Cent.  XVII.    Sec.  II.  Par.  ii.  c.  2,  §  37,  n. 

II  Encyc.  Am.  XII.  599. 


37 

single  quotation  from  Dr.  Hawes,  who  tells  us,  that 
*'  most  of  those  Churches,  [i.  e.  of  Germany  and  Geneva,] 
with  their  ministers,  have  passed  through  all  the  vari- 
ous grades  of  Arianism,  and  even  Deism,  and  yet  retain 
the  form  of  Christian  Churches,  and  the  name  of  Christian 
ministers."*  And  these  are  the  Churches, — these  the 
ministers,  this  the  theology  for  which  our  reviewer  professes 
his  sympathy!  Similar  to  this,  was  the  first  step  towards 
Unitarianism  in  Massachusetts.  What  then,  must  we  sup- 
pose, will  be  the  consequence  in  Connecticut,  of  subscribing 
"  for  substance  of  doctrine"? 

III.  The  third  point  brought  out  in  the  review,  is  the  design 
and  mission  of  the  Church.  This  is  the  important, — the 
most  important  point  in  the  whole  article, — the  key  to 
all  the  peculiarities  of  the  system.  It  is  this  which  consti- 
tutes that  which  the  reviewer  describes  as  "  the  distinctive 
religion  of  New  England,"  (p.  143,)  and  which  may,  there- 
fore, be  properly  called  JYew-Englandism.  All  the  other 
peculiarities  of  that  system  flow  from  this  one,  and  conse- 
quently this  is  deserving  of  particular  attention.  The 
Bishop  says  in  his  Charge;  "  The  Church  is  the  great  in- 
strument devised  by  infinite  wisdom  for  the  extension  of 
God's  mercies  to  mankind.  It  has  been  essentially  the 
same,  though  modified  by  different  dispensations,  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world  to  the  present  time.  Through  it  alone 

*  Trib.  Pil.  85,  86.  The  picture  of  the  state  of  religion  in  Germnny,  as  drawn 
by  the  Rationalistic  Bretschneider,  (1822,)  is  most  deplorable.  He  says  that 
there  is  a  general  indifference  to  religion  among  all  classes,  that  very  many  are 
without  the  Bible  entirely,  that  those  who  have  it  very  generally  neglect  it,  that  not 
one  fifth  of  the  inhabitants  attend  Church,  that  Sunday  is  not  generally  regarded 
but  made  a  day  of  business  and  pleasure,  and  that  many  ministers  preach  poUtics 
and  agriculture,  instead  of  reHgion.  Upon  the  Unchristian  Character  of  the  pres- 
ent  time.  3 — 47.  State  Prot.  Germ.  197,  198.  And  the  biographer  of  Moehler 
adds  to  this,  "  the  multiplication  of  divorce,  and  general  demoralization."  p.  34. 

In  Geneva,  in  1839,  there  was  not  a  Church  belonging  tc  the  establishment, 
which  was  not  Unitarian,  and  Unitarianism  was  increasing  in  the  other  Swiss  Can.^ 
ons.    Christ.  Exam.  XXVI.  [N.  S.  VIII.]  320,  321. 


38 

are  tendered  all  the  divine  promises  of  grace  to  a  ruined 
world."  (p.  11.)  This  is  a  clear,  distinct,  and  satisfactory 
statement  of  a  most  important  doctrine,  but  which  the 
Bishop's  design  did  not  lead  hira  to  pursue  in  its  details. 

In  reply  to  this  position,  however,  the  reviewer  is  evi- 
dently somewhat  at  a  stand.  He  seems  not  to  be  thorough- 
ly versed  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  JYew-Englandism. 
Still,  it  is  evident  that  he  belongs  to  the  same  school,  and 
after  admitting  that  the  Christian  Church  "  was  designed 
to  be  a  perpetual  bond  of  unity,  and  a  vehicle  of  grace  to- 
all  future  ages,"  (p.  159,)  he  hastens  over  the  point,  and 
proceeds  to  the  consideration  of  other  questions.  But  this 
omission,  intentional  no  doubt,  is  fully  supplied  by  an  ar- 
ticle in  the  preceding  number  of  the  same  periodical,  to" 
which,  therefore,  we  must  have  recourse. 

It  is  a  fundamental  proposition  of  New-Englanuism,  that 
the  Church  which  is  "  a  bond  of  Catholic  unity,  and  the 
vehicle  of  grace,"  to  which  the  promises  and  the  covenants 
are  given,  is  not  a  visible,  organized  body,  but  an  invisible 
body,  "  that  great  spiritual  community  of  chosen,  redeem- 
ed, forgiven,  sanctified  souls,  of  which  Christ  is  the 
founder  and  redeemer,  and  in  which  he  is  the  prince  or 
head."  (N.  E.  I.  552.)  "  This  and  not  any  outward  or- 
ganization," says  New-Englandism,  "  is  the  true  kingdom 
of  Christ, — the  kingdom   of  God."*     Or  as  it  is  stated 

*  N.  E.  552.  One  of  the  favourite  authors  of  the  writer  of  the  article  from 
which  this  quotation  is  made,  is  Planck.  Bacon's  Manual,  p.  183,  where  Planck's 
History  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Society  (Church  ?)  is  referred  to  aS 
unexceptionable  authority.  His  views,  as  detailed  in  his  work  Upon  Separation  and 
Re-union,  are,  that  though  Christ  foresaw  that  a  Church  would  arise  in  course 
of  time,  and  though  he  probably  wished  it  might  be  so,  yet  he  never  intended  that 
the  teachers  of  that  Church  should  appear  in  the  world  as  a  visible  society,  or  be 
united  by  any  external  tie,  confining  themselves  to  an  union  of  moral  ties, — of 
affections,  inclinations,  intentions  and  hopes.  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  he 
says  are  not  essential  articles  of  external  worship,  nor  a  necessary  condition  for 
forming  an  intimate  internal  connexion.  See  State  Prot.  Germ.  168.  Here  is  a 
germ  of  the  philosophy  of  New-Englandism  in  the  Rationalism  of  Germany. 


39 

in  another  place,  "  it  is  the  dominion  of  truth  and  love, 
the  reigning  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men."  (I.  400.)  So 
much  of  this  as  is  applicable  to  "the  mystical  body  of  Christ 
which  is  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people,"  as 
expressed  in  that  most  beautiful  and  touching  thanksgiving 
in  our  Communion  service.  Churchmen  acknowledge  and 
believe. 

But  with  them  this  is  not  all.  There  is  a  visible  body  of 
Christ, — a  Church,  into  which,  through  faith,  we  are  en- 
grafted by  Baptism,  and  in  which,  by  faith,  we  are  fed  and 
nourished  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  thereby  becoming  one 
with  Him  as  he  is  one  with  the  Father, — He  dwelling  in  us 
and  we  in  Him.  It  is  this  Church,  which  is  the  dispenser 
of  God's  grace  and  blessings  to  the  world, — this  Church 
which  is  to  be  the  bond  of  Catholic  unity  through  all  ages,  to 
which  has  been  committed  the  oracles  of  God,  to  which 
pertain  the  covenants  and  promises,  and  which  is  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth. 

But  not  so  the  New  Englander.  Faith,  and  faith  alone, 
unites  him  to  the  living  head.  Baptism  has  no  power  to 
engraft  him  into  the  body  of  Christ,  for  it  denies  the  exist- 
ence of  any  such  visible  body  as  we  suppose.  It  is  no  more 
than  the  "  formal  declaration  of  the  fact,  that  the  person 
baptized  belongs  to  Christ,"  or  that  he  is  "  united  to  the 
invisible  congregation  of  the  redeemed,"  (N.  E.  I.  554,) 
but  which  after  all  may  not  be  a  fact.  "  Confirmation,''''  or 
any  other  form  of  a  public  profession  of  religion,  is  a  mere 
recognition  of  the  same  fact, — "  the  fact  of  a  union  with  the 
invisible  and  universal  congregation  of  Christ's  redeem- 
ed," (I.  554,)  but  which  after  all  may  not  be  a  fact.  And 
the  Eucharist, — alas,  no  place  is  found  in  the  New-England- 
er's  gospel,  for  that  holy  sacrament  !  At  least,  it  was  not 
considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  mentioned,  when 
summing  up  the  characteristics  of  "  that  distinctive  relig- 
ion,"-— the  Gospel    of    New-Englandism.     And   that  too, 


40 

when  contrasting  it  with  a  view  of  the  gospel,  In  which  this 
sacrament  is  regarded  as  highly  important.  Such,  then, 
are  the  features  of  New-Englandism,  as  sketched  by  its 
own  organ.  A  body  which  has  no  visibility,  a  baptism 
which  is  the  mere  recognition  of  an  uncertain  fact,  a  pro- 
fession of  religion  which  is  another  recognition  of  the  same 
uncertain  fact,  and  a  sacrament,  (as  we  suppose,  but)  which 
is  not  worth  mentioning.     Truly,  this  is  "  another  gospel."* 

But  there  is  another  aspect  in  which  this  feature  of  New- 
Englandism  must  be  considered.  The  gospel  of  the  Church, 
unites  men  to  a  body,  in  which  there  are  certain  divinely 
instituted  ordinances  or  sacraments,  given  to  be  aids  to  the 
Christian  in  his  spiritual  warfare, — means  of  quickening 
and  invigorating  that  faith  which  is  the  foundation  of  his 
Christian  life, — sources  of  comfort  and  consolation  to  the 
humble  believer.  It  puts  ixothing  between  the  Saviour 
and  the  sinner^s  soul,  as  this  same  New-Englander  absurdly 
pretends,  (I.  555,)  though  it  furnishes  the  Christian  with 
aids  to  help  him  forward  in  his  course.  The  sacraments, 
the  priesthood,  even  the  Church  itself,  is  for  the  Christian, 
not  for  the  sinner;  though  all  are  standing  witnesses  against 
him. 

But  not  so,  New-Englandism.  That  cuts  loose  the 
Christian  from  this  organized  body,  making  him  a  Church, 
in  and  of  himself,  endowing  him  with  all  priestly  power, 
authorizing  him    to  administer  the  ordinances  of  religion,! 

*  N.  E.  1.  555.  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his  Letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
speaks  of  the  system  of  Geneva,  as  in  final  conflict  with  the  principles  of  Catholo- 
cism,  which  D'Aubigne  adopts  as  true.  And  it  is  common  to  hear  similar  lan- 
guage here.  But  whoever  supposes  New-Englandism  to  be  the  system  of  Gene, 
va,  meaning  thereby  the  system  of  Calvin,  is  ignorant  of  the  real  character  of  one 
or  both. 

t  The  Germans  have  carried  this  view  one  step  further.  In  the  language  of 
Moehler,  (Sym.  100.)  "  In  the  consistent  progress  of  things,  [in  Rationalism,] 
every  one  considered  himself  in  a  wide  circle,  the  representative  of  humanity, 

redeemed  from  error  at  least, — a  sort  of  microcosomic  Christ As  each 

one  redeemed  himself,  there  was  no  longer  a  common  redeemer." 


1 


41 

making  him  (for  himself)  the  sole  judge  ot  the  truth,  con- 
ferring  upon  him  an  uncontrouled  "  individual  responsibili- 
ty," and  an  unlimited  "  right  of  private  judgment."*  To 
such  an  one,  the  sacraments  are  next  to  nothing,  and  the; 
Church  is  of  little  or  no  consequence.  In  his  approach  to 
the  throne  of  mercy,  he  asks  for  no  helps,  and  refuses  all 
aids.  There  is  no  authority  can  bind  the  conscience,  or 
command  the  obedience  of  such  a  man,  in  any  matter  of 
faith  or  practice.  With  him,  the  judgment  of  the  Church 
is  nothing, — the  united  testimony  of  all  antiquity  touching 
any  article  of  faith,  is  nothing.  He  receives  the  Bible, 
(perhaps,)  as  it  has  been  preserved  for  him  by  others,  but 
in  interpreting  it  he  relies  entirely  upon  his  own  "  wayward 
fancy"  as  the  last  resort.  Such  an  individual  is,  in  his 
own  proper  person,  what  the  papal  Church  is,  with  its  pope, 
and  cardinals,  and  councils,  and  hierarchy. f  The  same 
assertion  of  the  same  right,  to  set  aside  the  testimony  of  an- 
tiquity, to  disregard  the  voice  of  the  Church  Catholic,  and 
in  terms,   if  not  in  words,    the  same  claim  of  infallibility.! 


*  The  following  terms,  applied  to  this  subject,  are  copied  from  the  same  worki 
''  Denying  the  individual  risrht  to  interpret  the  Bible  for  himself."  (N.  E.  II.  67, 
68.)  "  Personal  responsibiltiy  to  God  alone."  (68.)  "  Pusillanimous  surrender  of 
individual  judgment."  (69.)  "  The  ennobling  principle  of  individual  interpreta- 
tion." (69.)  "Those  [vital]  truths  the  interpretations  of  individual  Christians 
will  give  us."  (71.)     And  this  they  call  "  the  Protestant  principle"  ! 

t  The  reviewer  almost  uttered  the  truth  when  he  spoke  of  the  connectiori  of 
Episcopacy  arid  Romanism.  Instead  of  Romanism  being  "  a  natural  and  propi 
er  development  of  Episcopacy,"  (157,)  he  should  have  said  that  it  was  "  a  natu- 
ral result  from  setting  private  judgment  above  Episcopacy,"  sinte  every  corrup- 
tion of  Romanism  originated  in  setting  private  judgment  above  the  decisions  of 
the  Church.  Arid  it  is  a  most  remarffeable  fact,  worthy  of  careful  consideration, 
that  riearly  every  corruption  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  originated  with  some  here- 
tic, or  body  of  heretics,  and  was  subsequently  adopted  and  defended  by  the  Romish 
theologians.  See  Sir  Humphrey  Lynde's  Via  Devia,  for  a  demonstration  of  this 
fact.  That  they  subsequently  received  the  sanction  of  large  portions  of  the  Church, 
and  were  even  approved  by  some  councils  docs  not  alter  the  case. 

t  This  is  asserted  by  the  iVei0.i?/?^Zand'er.  (11.71.)  "The  fallacy  of  this  ar.; 
gument  [that  in  regard  to  primitive  antiquity]  lies  in  the  assumption,  that  the 
promise  of  Christ  to  be  with  his  servants  and  preserve  them  from  fatal  error  is 

6 


42 

It  is  not  merely  "  individual  responsibility,"  not  merely 
*'  the  right  of  private  judgment"  which  this  system  of  in- 
dividualism  proposes.  It  is  the  disjunction  of  the  visible 
body  of  Christ,  the  sundering  of  all  the  bands  and  ties, 
a  rending  of  those  cords  and  ligaments  which  unite  the 
congregation  of  the  faithful  in  one  holy  brotherhood.  It 
is  the  disintegration  of  the  particles  composing  the  body, 
and  an  attempt  to  confer  upon  each  atom,  that  which  be- 
longs to  the  body  as  the  whole.  Fearful  indeed,  will  he 
the  responsibility  thus  devolved  upon  man,  to  those  who 
have  any  just  ideas  of  the  nature  and  importance  of  Christ 
and  the  Church. 

It  will  not  be  supposed,  that  this  "  distinctive  religion  of 
New  England"  can  be  sustained  and  defended  by  those  ar- 
guments which  have  been  employed  to  defend  the  religion 
of  the  Bible.  New  arguments,  of  course,  must  be  found 
out.  This  is  done  by  applying  all  or  most  of  those  passa- 
ges of  scripture  which  confer  blessings  and  graces  upon  the 
Church,  to  an  invisible  or  mystical  body, — passages,  too, 
which  nearly  the  whole  current  of  authorities,  ancient  and 
modern,  Romish  and  Protestant,  have  uniformly  applied  to 
the  visible  body  of  Christ.  That  body  into  which  we 
are  introduced  by  baptism,  and  of  which  Christ  is  the 
head,  is  no  longer  a  visible  body.  Baptism  no  longer  in- 
troduces us  into  that  body,  being  no  more  than  a  "  formal 
declaration"  that  we  are  already  in  it.  There  is  no  longer 
any  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  a  mere  "  formal 
declaration,"  that  they  are  already  forgiven.  The  Eucha- 
rist no  longer  imparts  to  the  f^thful  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  serving  no  other  purpose  than  to  remind  us  of 
them.  Schism  is  no  more  division,  no  more  separating 
from  this  visible  body,  but  mere  hatred,  ill-will,  and  secret 
intention  of  the  heart.     Such  are  the  necessary  consequen- 

madc  to  an  organized  body  of  Christians,  and  not  merely  [IT]  to  individual  be- 
lievers, and  the  mvisible  community  coinjjosed  of  them." 


43 

ces  of  New  Englandism,  most  of  which  are  openly  avowed 
and  defended,  and  the  remainder  clearly  hinted  at. 

Another  question  of  interest,  as  bearing  directly  upon  the 
other  points  tobe  considered,  and  necessary  to  be  noticed,  is 
the  origin  of  the  "  distinctive  religion,"  called  New-Eng- 
landism.  This  has  been  said  to  be  Calvinism.  And  no 
doubt  the  savins:  is  true.  But  how  it  has  grown  out  of  Cal- 
vinism  does  not  seem  to  be  well  known.  Even  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  system,  do  not  seem  to  be  well  aware  what 
relation  it  has  to  Calvinism,  It  will  be  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  delineate  some  of  the  leading  features  of  that  sys- 
tem, so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  question  under  consideration, 
which  we  shall  do  in  its  own  language. 

"  Wherever,"  says  Calvin,  "  we  find  the  word  of  God 
purely  preached  and  heard,  and  the  sacraments  administered 
according  to  the  institution  of  Christ,  there,  it  is  not  to  be 
doubted,  is  a  Church  of  God."  (IV,  i.  9,)  This  (>hurch  in- 
cludes all,  "  who  profess  to  worship  one  God  and  Jesus 
Christ,  who  are  initiated  into  his  faith  by  baptism,  who 
testify  their  unity  in  true  doctrine  and  charity  by  a  partici- 
pation of  the  Lord's  Supper,  who  consent  to  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  preserve  the  ministry  which  Christ  has  in- 
stituted for  preaching  it,"  (IV.  i.  7,)  that  "there  is  no  oth- 
er way  of  entrance  into  life,  unless  we  are  conceived  by 
her,  [•'  the  visible  Church,']  born  of  her,  nourished  at  her 
breast,  and  continually  preserved  under  her  care  and  govern- 
ment, till  we  are  divested  of  this  mortal  flesh  and  become 
like  the  angels,"  that  -'our  infirmity  will  not  admit  our  dis- 
mission from  her  school,  that  we  must  continue  under  her 
instruction  and  discipline  to  the  end  of  our  lives,  and  that 
out  of  her  bosom  there  can  be  no  hope  of  remission  of  sins, 
nor  any  salvation."  (IV.  i,  4,)  And  "  so  highly  does  the 
Lord  esteem  the  communion  of  his  Church,  that  he  con- 
siders every  one  a  traitor,  and  apostate  from  religion,  who 
perversely  withdraws  himself  from  any   Chiistian   society 


44 

which  preserves  the  true  ministry  of  the  word  and  sacra-, 
ments."  (IV.  i.  10.) 

In  constituting  the  ministry  of  this  Church,  he  says, 
God  "  Chooses  from  among  men,  those  who  are  to  be  his 
ambassadors  to  the  w^orld,  to  be  the  interpreters  of  his 
secret  will,  and  even  to  act  as  his  personal  representatives,'* 
(IV.  iii.  I,)  that  this  "  ministry  of  men  w^hich  God  employs 
in  the  government  ot  his  Church,  is  the  principal  bond 
which  holds  the  faithful  together  in  one  body.  ...  Whoever, 
therefore,  aims  to  abolish  or  undervalue  this  order,  attempts 
to  disorganize  the  Church,  or  rather  to  subvert  and  destroy 
it  altogether.*  For  light  and  heat  are  not  so  essential  to 
the  sun,  nor  any  meat  or  drink  so  necessary  to  the  nour- 
ishment ot  the  present  life,  as  the  Apostolical  and  Pastoral 
office  is,  to  the  preservation  of  the  Church  in  the  world,"! 
(IV.  iii.  2,)  and  that  "  the  Church  is  the  mother  of  all  those 
who  have  God  for  their  Father."  (IV.  i.  1.) 

This  Church  has  two  sacraments  given  into  it,  the  design 
of  which  are,  "  to  promote  our  faith  in  Christ,  and  to  tes- 
tify our  own  confession  before  men,"  (IV.  xv.  1,)  that  "  in 
baptism  God  regenerates  us,  incorporates  us  into  the 
society  of  his  Church,  and  makes  us  children  by  adop- 
tion," (IV.  xvii.  1,)  that  '•  the  knowledge  and  assurance  of 
salvation  is  received  in  this  sacrament,"  (IV.  xv.  2,)  that 
in  baptism  "  we  are  promised  first,  the  gratuitous  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  imputation  of  righteousness;  and, 
secondly,  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  reform  us  to 
newness  of  life,"  (IV.  xv.  5,)  and  it  also  "affords  a  certain 

*  This  is  the  doctrine  which  the  reviewer,  in  his  usual  courteous  and  lucid 
manner,  describes  as  "  the  magic  potency,  which  discharged  at  will,  from  his  [tl.e 
ordainer's]  fingers,  can  make  the  only  true  priest,  and  imparts  the  requisite  power 
to  Christian  sacraments."  (p.  162.)  Yet  after  all,  this  is  an  arrant  plagiarism  on 
the  review  of  Mr.  Calvin  Colton.     Quar.  Chris.  Spec.  VIII.  617. 

X  This  is  openly  done  by  New-Englandism,  (Congregational  Catechism,)  by 
Neander,  (ante  p.  31.)  and  virtually  by  Tholuck,  and  Olshausen,  (Kaufman's  In- 
trod.  Thol.  Com.  on  John,  v.) 


45 

testimony,  that  we  are  not  only  ingrafted  into  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ,  but  are  so  united  [to  him]  as  to  be  par- 
takers of  all  his  benefits."  (IV.  xv.  6.) 

In  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  "  Christ  of- 
fers himself  to  us  with  all  his  benefits,  and  we  receive  him 
by  faith,"  (IV.  xvii.  5,)  ''  our  souls  are  fed  by  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  Christ,  just  as  our  corporeal  life  is  preserved 
and  sustained  by  bread  and  wine,"  ....  and  "  though  it 
appears  incredible  for  the  flesh  of  Christ,  from  such  an 
immense  local  distance,  to  reach  us,  so  as  to  become  our 
food,  we  should  remember  the  secret  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  transcends  all  our  senses,  and  what  folly  it  is  to  ap- 
ply any  measure  of  ours  to  his  immensity.  Let  our  faith 
receive,  therefore,  what  our  understanding  is  not  able  to 
comprehend,  that  the  spirit  reallyunitesthingswhich  are  sep- 
arated by  local  distance.  Now  that  holy  participation  of 
his  flesh  and  blood,  by  which  Christ  communicates  his 
life  to  us,  just  as  if  he  actually  penetrated  every  part  of 
our  frame,  in  the  sacred  supper  he  also  testifies  and  seals; 
and  that,  not  by  the  exhibition  of  a  vain  or  ineffectual 
sign,  but  by  the  exertion  of  the  energy  of  his  Spirit,  by 
which  he  accomplishes  that  which  he  promises."  (IV.  xvii. 
10.) 

But  Calvin  held  that  there  was  another  bond  of  union 
depending  upon  election,  including  all  the  elect  of  God, 
whether  living  or  dead,"  (IV.  i.  2,)  from  which  arose 
the  "  communion  of  the  Saints,"  (IV.  i.  3,)  and  which 
was  called  by  his  followers,  "the  mystical  union."  It 
consisted,  as  was  supposed,  in  a  spiritual  conjunction, 
"descending  from  Christ  to  all  his  members, — creating  in 
them  the  instrument  of  faith,  whereby  they  apprehend  him, 
and  make  him  their  own,  ....  and  being  the  ground  of  the 
conveyance  of  all  grace."* 

*  Perkin's  Expos.  Creed,  860,  3G1. 


46 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  Calvin  taught  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration,  notwithstanding  the  sturdy  deni- 
al of  -the  reviewer;  (p.  168,)  though  he  did  deny  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  the  opus  operatum,  (IV.  xiv.  14,  26,)  which  the 
reviewer  by  some  strange  misconception  understands  to  be 
the  denial  of  something  else.*  But,  reasons  the  reviewer, 
Calvin,  and  Luther,  and  the  Protestant  Confessions  which 
followed  their  teaching,  taught  "  the  doctrine  of  spiritual 
grace,  absolute  election,  and  limited  atonement,"  (p.  170,) 
and  therefore,  it  is  impossible  that  the  doctrine  of  baptis- 
mal regeneration  should  be  the  authoritative  teaching  of 
those  Confessions."  But  the  reviewer  forgets,  that  the 
question  is  not  what  they  ought  to  teach,  to  be  consistent 
with  themselves,  but,  what  do  they  actually  teach?  But 
the  inference  of  the  reviewer  is  contradicted  by  the  express 
teaching  of  those  formularies.  The  Scotch,  Presbyterian, 
and  Savoy  Confessions,  the  Cambridge  and  Saybrook  Plat- 
forms, all  agree  in  saying,  that  "  by  the  right  use  of  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism,  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered, 
but  really  [i.  e.  actually]  exhibited,  and  [actually]  CON- 
FERRED by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age 
or  infants)  as  that  grace  helongeth  wn/o."t  The  only  ques- 
tion, therefore,  is,  to  whom  does  grace  belong?  And  the 
answer  given  by  all  those  Confessions,  as  well  as  by  Luther 
and  Calvin,  is,  to  the  elect. ^  That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  act- 
ually conferred  upon  the  elect,  in  the'sacrament  of  baptism, 
is  the  undoubted  teaching  of  all  the  formularies  in  ques- 
tion. 

The  doctrines   of  Calvinism   remained  for  some  time  in 


*  The  Bishop,  in  quoting  from  Calvin,  gave  several  extracts  from  one  chapter, 
indicating  the  omissions  in  the  usual  manner,  and  the  reviewer  calls  it  a  "  disin- 
genuous and  garbled  compilation,"  (p.  168,)  and  on  the  same  page,  in  making  a 
quotation  from  the  same  author,  the  reviewer  omits  a  passage  without  giving  any 
notice  of  the  omission,  and  calls  that  honesty  we  suppose  ! 

t  Scot,  and  Pres.  c.xxviii.  ^  6.    Csmh.  and  Say.  xxix.  ^  6. 


47 

their  integrity,  but  the  eagle-eyed  metaphysicians  of 
New-England  were  not  long  in  perceiving,  that  if  the  mysti- 
cal union  with  Christ,  was  "  the  sole  ground  of  the  con- 
veyance of  all  grace,"  that  the  Church  and  sacraments,  if  not 
needless,  were,  at  least,  of  secondrate  importance,*  and  they 
very  soon  ceased  to  be  urged  upon  their  hearers  with  any 
degree  of  interest  or  fervour.  But  it  was  not  until  the  ap- 
pearance of  what  was  called  the  "  New  Light  theology," 
in  the  last  century,  that  this  change  became  complete.  With 
Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  their  followers,  the  Church  and 
Sacraments  were,  to  the  elect,  important  means  of  grace,  and 
were  continually  set  forth  and  commented  upon  as  such. 
In  the  language  of  Calvin,  "  the  faithful,  w^henever  dis- 
tressed with  a  consciousness  of  their  sins,  should  have  re- 
course to  the  remembrance  of  their  baptism,  in  order  to 
confirm  themselves  in  the  confidence  of  their  interest  in  that 
perpetual  ablution  whichis  enjoyed  in  the  blood  of  Christ." 
(IV.  XV.  4.)  And  in  the  Eucharist,  he  says,  we  "  are 
quickened  by  a  real  participation  of  Christ,"  (IV.  xvii  5,) 
that  he  "  makes  the  very  flesh  in  which  he  resides,  the  means 
of  giving  life  to  us,  that  by  a  participation  of  it  we  may  be 
nourished  to  immortality,"  (lb.  8,)  so  that  "  being  made 
partakers  of  his  substance,  we  may  experience  his  power, 
in  the  communication  of  all  blessings."  (lb.  11.) 

How  unlike  all  these  views  of  the  Genevan  Reformer^ 
are  the  opinions  of  his  modern  followers,  we  need  not  point 
out.  But  we  must  advert  to  some  views  taken  by  the  New 
School  theologians  of  the  last  century,  in  order  to  mark 
the  transition  from  Calvinism  to  New-Englandism.  In  do- 
ing this,  we  shall  quote  from  a  work  by  Rev.  Dr.  Bellamy, 
confessedly  one  of  the  mildest,  and  most  reasonable,  of 
all  that  school  of  theologians.  His  work  is  entitled,  True 
Religion    Delineated.     It  was  published  in   1750,    with    a 

*  •'  The  community  of  Christ's  disciples,  is  Christ's  body,  and  all  who  belong 
to  it  ...  .  are  individually  and  personally  united  to  him."  N.  E.  I.  553. 


48 

Preface  by  Dr.  Edwards,  and  was  reviewed  and  recommendeu 
in  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator  for  September,  1830. 

"  As  to  a  natural  capacity,  all  mankind  are  capable  of  a 
perfect  conformity  to  God's  law,  ....  and  all  our  inability 
arises  merely  from  the  bad  temper  of  our  hearts  and  our 
want  of  a  good  disposition,"  (p.  107,)  and  "this  want  of  a 
good  temper,  ....  is  ALL  that  renders  the  immediate  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit  so  absolutely  necessary,  or  indeed, 
at  all  needful,  to  recover  and  bring  us  to  love  God  with  all 
.our  hearts,"  (p.  112,)  that  "  the  sinner  is  what  he  is,  not 
by  compulsion,  or  through  a  natural  necessity,  but  altogether 
Doluntarily ,"  (p.  110,)  that  this  "bad  temper"  results  frorh 
our  wanting  "  the  moral  image  of  God,"  (p.  150,)  and  "  that 
we  are  born  into  the  world,  entirely  destitute  of  this  moral 
image  of  God',"  (p.  152^)  vl'hence  arises  "  a  disposition,  natu- 
ral to  all  mankind,  directly  contrary  to  God's  holy  law,  ex- 
ceeding sinful,  and  the  root  of  all  wickedness,"  (p.  157,) 
and  that  "  we  are  naturally,  entirely  under  the  government 
of  these  dispositions,  in  all  things,  and  under  all  circum- 
stances,'" (p.  156,)  that  "  they  have  the  full  possession  of 
our  souls,  and  the  entire  government  of  our  hearts,"  (p.  154,) 
that  "  conversion  consists  in  our  being  recovered  from  our 
present  sinfulness,  to  the  moral  image  of  God,"  that  this 
"recovery"  being  against  "the  very  grain  of  the  sinner's 
heart,  his  heart  will  make  the  utmost  resistance  it  possibly 
can,"  (p.  1S4,)  and  that  those  "  influences  of  the  spirit 
which  overcome  these  dispositions,"  and  "  recover  us  ttf 
God,"  are  immediate,  irresistible  and  supernatural,"  (p. 
190,)  that  those  who  have  thus  been  converted  "  may  be  in- 
fallibly certain  that  they  have  true  grace,"  (p.  200,)  and 
vthat  "  the  great  change"  Wrought  in  man  "  by  conversion," 
must  be  known  to  him  at  the  time,  being  "  perceptible' 
to  the  mind,"  (p.  271,)  and  "  that  the  way  for  a  man  to" 
know  that  he  has  grace,  is  not  to  try  himself  by  fallible 
signs,  but  intuitively  look  into  himself  and  see  grace,"  brcI 


49 

(p.  202,)  and  since  "  grace  is,  in  its  own  nature,  perce 
and  special,  ....  there   is  no   need   of  the   immediate  wit- 
ness of  the  spirit,  in  order  to  a  full  assurance."  (p.  203.) 

This  is  far  enough  removed  from  the  teaching  of  Calvin, 
on  several  important  points.  It  asserts  man's  "  natural 
ability  to  repent"  which  Calvin  denied,  and  it  substitutes 
the  evidence  of  "  feeling,"  that  is,  the  individual's  opinion 
in  regard  to  his  spiritual  state,  for  that  of  the  witness  of 
the  sacraments.  But  there  were  also  other  peculiarities  of 
the  "  New  Divinity,"  of  which  Bellamy,  and  Edwards, 
and  Hopkins,  and  West,  were  "  the  fathers  and  support- 
ers."* These,  as  enuraerated_by  Rev.  Dr.  Bacon,  were, 
"the  denial  of  the  tendency  or  fitness  of  the  means  of  re- 
generation to  accomplish  their  end;  the  hypothesis,  that 
sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  it  occurs,  is,  on  the  whole  bet- 
ter for  the  Universe,  than  holiness  would  be  in  its  place^ 
and  is,  therefore,  not  merely  permitted  by  the  Father  of 
lights,  but  preferred  to  holiness  in  its  stead,  and  introduced 

by   his  positive  efficiency; — and    the  dogma, that  a 

willingness   to  be  damned    for  the   glory  of  God,  is  an  es- 
sential condition  of  salvation."! 

At  a  still  later  period  we  see  the  influence  of  this  theolo- 
gy, in  a  series  of  articles  published  in  The  Connecticut  Evan- 
gelical Magazine  for  1806.  In  the  December  number  for 
that  year,  the  writer  gave  a  summary  of  the  opinions  advo- 
cated in  those  articles.  He  says,  (p.  204,)  that  "  the  change 
of  nature  in  the  new-birth,  is  in  a  general  sense,  physical, 
but  in  a  sense  more  appropriate,  it  is  moral,  ....  that  the 
cause  which  produces  and  perfects  this  change  in  the  heartj 

*  Bacon's  Hist.  Disc.  273. 

t  Dr.  West  also  held,  that  "  volition  is  the  production  of  God's  immediate  agen- 
cy ;  so  that  he  represents  man  to  be  a  passive  instrument,  a  mere  machine." 
Allen.  Biog.  Die.  765.  Dr.  Emmons  held,  that  God  "  is  the  efficieiit  cause  of 
every  event,  both  in  the  natural  and  moral  world,  that  all  hu«ian  volitions, 
the  good  and  the  bad  alike,  are  produced  by  his  irresistible  and  creative  energy.*' 
Exam.  Dr.  E's.  Theory  of  Divine  Agency.  Bib.  Repos.  P  •  S.]  X.  357. 
7 


60 

is  the  physical  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  c-eating  the 
subject  anew  unto  good  works,  without  his  [the  individual's] 
power,  co-operation,  or  casual  influence,  physical  or  moral, 
of  which,  for  this  work  he  is  wholly  destitute."  Who 
was  the  author  of  these  articles,  we  know  not,  but  the  Ed- 
itors of  the  work  in  which  they  appeared,  were  the  Rev. 
Drs.  Nathan  Williams,  John  Sraalley,  Benjamin  Trumbull, 
Levi  Hart,  Isaac  Lewis,  Timothy  Dwight,  Nathan  Strong, 
Nathan  Perkins,  and  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Samuel  J.  Mills,  Da- 
vid Ely,  Moses  C.  Welch,  Zebulon  Ely,  and  Abel  Flint,— 
a  list  of  names  sufficient  to  guarranty  the  soundness  (in  the 
estimation  of  Congregationalists)  of  all  that  appeared  upon 
its  pages. 

This  theology,  therefore,  according  to  the  representation 
given  of  it  by  its  mildest  advocates,  makes  "  true  religion" 
to  commence"  in  a  sudden,  physical  change  of  heart,  wrought 
by  the  immediate,  irresistible,  and  supernatural  influences  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  without  the  instrumentality  of  any  means 
tending  to  produce  this  change,  perceptible  to  the  mind  of  the 
person  wrought  upon,  but  wholly  independent  of  the  co-ope- 
ration, power  or  influence  of  those  who  are  the  subjects  of 
it."  This  is  the  precise  statement  of  the  Bishop  in  his 
Charge,  (p.  20,)  as  to  what  he  supposes  to  be  the  "  popular 
apprehension"  of  this  theology,  with  the  single  exception, 
that  we  have  strengthened  it  by  several  additional  epithets, 
and  deduced  it  from  the  most  authoritative  sources.  And 
this  is  the  statement,  which  the  reviev.'er  says,  exhibits  an 
"  titter  dereliction  of  truth  in  every  sentence."  (p.  172.) 
Surely,  he  ought  to  study  the  fathers  of  Congregationalism, 
if  he  does  not  the  fathers  of  the  Church! 

That  the  natural,  the  inevitable  tendency  of  such  teaching, 
if  it  produced  any  influence,  would  be,  to  undervalue  if  not  to 
set  aside  the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments,  can 
not  be  ques\ioned.  And  that  the  "New  Light  Theology"  did 
produce  an  exl^nsive  influence,  has  been  put  beyond    doubt 


51 

by  Dr.  Trumbull.*  And  we  have  abundant  evidence,  that 
its  influence  was  seen,  where  we  might  expect, — in  the  un- 
dervaluing, and  consequent  neglect  of  the  sacraments.  In- 
fant baptism  very  soon  fell  into  comparative  disuse,  which 
was  lamented,  not  by  President  Dwight  alone,  but  by  Dr. 
Williams,  in  an  elaborate  pamphlet  on  the  subject,  and  by 
many  others.  And  those  who  retained  it,  did  so  on  new 
and  different  principles.  President  Dwight  and  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, after  the  fathers  of  Congregationalism  in  New-Eng- 
land, taught  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  their  standards,  hold- 
ing that  baptism  was  the  rite  of  intiation  into  the  Church, 
and  that  all  baptized  persons  were  members  of  the  Church. f 
But  anotherparty  followed,  headed  by  Rev.  Drs.  Hopkins  and 
West,  who  departed  one  step  from  this  opinion,!  to  whom 
succeeded  another  party  headed  by  Rev.  Dr.  Emmons  and 
Rev.  Cyprian  Strong,  departing  still  another  step,  deny- 
ing that  baptized  children  were  members  of  the  Church,  or 
members  of  a  covenant  with  God,  holding  that  it  was  to 
be  continued  in  token  of  the  parents'  good  covenant  stand- 
ing,§  to  which  has  succeeded  New-Englandism,  which  makes 
the  baptism  of  adults,  the  uncertain  recognition  of  an  un- 
certain fact,  and  the  baptism  of  infants,  we  know  not  what. 
Similar  to  this  has  been  the  downward  course  of  the  doc- 
trine in  regard  to  the  Eucharist.  The  doctrine  of  personal 
election  taught  by  Calvinism,  added  to  the  "  New  Light" 
doctrine  of  the  mental  perceptibility  of  divine  grace,  and 
the  consequent  duty  of  complete  assurance  of  justification,  of 


*  HistrConn.  II.  249—264. 

t  Williams'  Inquiry  concerning  the  design  and  importance  of  Christian  Bap. 
tism.  1792.  Lathrop's  Qualifications  for  Church  Membership  and  Christian  Fel- 
lowship. 1 792. 

t  West's  Inquiry  into  the  ground  import  of  Infant  Baptism.  Root's  Letters,  &,c, 

§  Dr.  Emmons  on  Scriptural  Qualifications  and  access  to  the  Sacraments.  Dr. 
Hemmenway's  Remarks  on  same.  1 794.  Strong's  second  Inquiry  into  the  nature 
and  design  of  Christian  Baptism.  1796. 


52 

necessity  kept  back  those  who  lacked  this  assurance,  iVoin 
that  ordinance,  and  though  occasional  efforts  were  made  to 
revive  the  practice  of  more  general  communion,*  they  were 
comparatively  unavailing,  and  it  has  gone  down,  down, 
in  the  scale  of  orthodoxy,  from  a  spiritual  feast  on  a  spir- 
itual sacrifice,!  to  a  feast  upon  a  memorial  of  the  cru- 
cifixion,! then,  to  merely  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine 
in  commemoration  of  the  death  of  Christ, §  and  finally, 
all  mention  of  it  is  omitted  in  the  New-Englander's  gospel. 

What  the  Church  is,  according  to  the  teaching  of  New- 
Englandism,  we  have  already  seen,  and  that  it  has  resulted 
from  low  views  of  the  sacraments,  can  hardly  be  questioned, 
for  when  the  sacraments  ceased  to  be  means  of  grace,  the 
Church  to  which  the  sacraments  belonged,  should  cease  to 
he  the  dispenser  of  grace.  The  Church  of  New-England- 
ism  is,  therefore,  the  natural  result  of  the  "  New^  Light 
Theology,"  as  that  was  a  natural  offshoot  of  Calvinism. 
But  it  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  system  of  Geneva, 
save  its  "  mystical  union,"  but  without  any  distinct  acknowl- 
edgment of  its  election.  The  ''  spiritual  conjunction," 
growing  out  of  the  Calvinistic  idea  of  election,  is,  indeed, 
the  all  in  all  of  the  "  new  gospel."  If  it  does  not  formally 
set  aside  the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments,  it 
renders  them  insignificant  and  useless,  by  stripping  them  of 
all  divine  influence.  This,  we  suppose,  is  what  the  review- 
er means,  when  he  boasts  that  their  sacraments  are  "  clear 
of  all  priestly  magic  and  incantatio.n."  (p.  173.) 

"When,  therefore,  the  reviewer  denies  that  he  and  his  as- 
sociates teach  "  a  change  of  heart,  wrought  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  without  the  instrumentality  of  means,"  (p.  173,)  he 
prates  to  no  purpose.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Bacon  tells  him  that 
"  Bellamy,  and  Edwards,  and  Hopkins,  and  West,"  did  so 
teach  in  the  last  century,  and  we  have  seen   in  what  stroiig 

•  Lathrop's  Qualifications,  &,c.  Hemmenway's  Rem.,  &c.       t  Say.  Plat.  3.  30. 
t  Dr.  Murdock,  Seimonon  Eucharist,  1827.  ^  Bacon's  Manual,  58. 


53 

language  the  first  mentioned  person  expressed  it.  And 
we  have  seen  this  taught,  in  the  present  century,  with  the 
sanction  of  such  men  as  Williams,  and  Smalley,  and  Trum- 
bull, and  Hart,  and  Lewis,  and  Dwight,  and  Strong,  and 
Perkins,  and  Mills,  and  Ely,  and  Welch,  and  Flint.  So, 
when  he  says  that  they  do  not  call  this  "  perceptible  to  the 
mind,"  (p.  173,)  they  contradict  all  the  Fathers  of  the 
"  New  Light  Theology,"  and  go  against,  what  a  few  yearsi 
since,  was  the  "  popular  belief."  Whether  any  of  them 
teach  that  man  "  is  the  efficient  agent  in  the  work"  of 
spiritual  regeneration,  we  could  tell  better,  if  the  leaders 
of  that  school  would  publish  their  opinions  to  the  world. 
That  many  of  them  teach,  that  "  man  is  able  to  change  his 
own  heart,  independent  of  the  assistance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  is  capable  of  the  most  abundant  proof. 

Whether  they  do,  or  do  not  say,  that  after  this  "  sudden 
change,"  there  in  no  further  need  of  the  aids  of  divine  grace, 
no  need  of  a  Church,  no  need  of  a  ministry,  no  need  of 
sacraments, — the  work  is  finished,"  (p.  173,)  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose  as  no  such  charge  has  been  made.  But  that 
JYew-Englandism  does  "  abolish  the  ministry,"  as  a  divine 
or  apostolic  institution,  and  thereby,  as  Calvin  says,  "  sub- 
vert and  destroy  the  Church  altogether,"  is  certain.  That 
it  reduces  the  sacraments  to  mere  "  formal  declarations" 
of  an  uncertain  fact,  (N.  E.  L  554,)  "  empty  signs  of  an 
absent  body,"  is  also  certain.  And  what  other  "  aids 
of  divine  grace"  there  are,  than  such  as  are  derived  solely 
through  this  "  mystical  union,"  we  are  at  a  loss  to  conceive. 

Whether  the  Bishop  was  correct  in  describing  this  theol- 
ogy as  '^'  a  compound  of  excited  feeling,  with  some  of  the 
subtleties  of  Calvinism,"  (p.  20,)  at  which  the  reviewer 
holds  up  both  hands  in  astonishment,  our  readers  will  now 
be  able  to  perceive.  Whether  that  description  be  true  or 
not,  it  is  certainly  the  most  charitable  one  that  can  be  en-^ 
tertained,  for  if  it  were  not  "  excited  feeling"  that  led  men 


54 

to  deny, 

ordained  by  God  for  "  regeneration,  to  accomplish  the 
end," — and  to  teach  that  this  change  "  must  be  perceptible 
to  the  mind,"  and  that  "  a  willingness  to  be  damned,  for 
the  glory  of  God,  is  an  essential  condition  of  salvation," 
it  was  certainly  something  worse.* 

There  is  one  point,  to  which  we  have  incidcntaly  advert- 
ed, in  the  foregoing,  but  which  requires  a  more  careful 
consideration;  the  subject  of  baptism.  Yet  if  the  clear 
statements  of  the  Bishop  have  failed  of  giving  the  review- 
er any  distinct  idea  on  the  subject,  we  should  despair  of 
enlightening  or  convincing  him.  Still  there  are  a  few 
points,  on  which,  perhaps,  we  shall  be  able  to  make  him 
understand  us.  And  first,  all  his  flourish  about  the  Bishop's 
*'  puritan  baptism"  might  have  been  saved,  the  fact  happen- 
ing not  to  be  so,  as  a  writer  careful  for  the  truth  should 
have  known,  the  charge  having  been  long  since  publicly 
denied. t 

*  The  reviewer  professes  to  be  amazed  at  such  a  description  of  "  theology," 
especially  as  the  theology  of  "  Jonathan  Edwards."  That  such  was  the  theolo- 
gy of  those  times  we  have  abundantly  shown,  and  that  "  Jonathan  Edwards,"  the 
elder,  was  one  of  the  "  New  Light  Theologians,"  iscertain,  and  that  he  endorsed  all 
the  strange  doctrines  we  have  deduced  from  the  writings  of  Bellamy,  is  al. 
60  certain  ;  and  that  "  Jonathan  Edwards,"  the  younger,  was  one  of  the  "  New 
Divinity  men,"  is  no  less  certain.  We  have  no  disposition  to  detract  from  the 
reputation  of  Edwards,  but  it  is  now  conceded,  to  a  great  extent,  as  it  has  always 
been  claimed,  that  his  system  leads  directly  io  fatalism,  and  we  confess  our  ina- 
bility, — granting  his  premises,  to  avoid  those  conclusions.  Sec  Examination  of 
Edwards onthe  Will.  Boston,  1770,  [by  Dr.  Dana.]  Tappan's  Review  of  Ed, 
wards,  ^c,  1839.  Bib.  Repos.  [N.  S.J  11.257.  Comp  Review  ofEd  wards'  On  Lib. 
frty  and  necessity.  Bib.  Repos.  [N.  S.]  IX.  324.  Dr.  Dana  regarded  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  Edwards,  as  identical  with  those  of  the  infidels,  Hobbs,  Spi- 
noza, Leibnitz,  and  Collins,  and  in  his  appendix  he  has  shown  some  of  the  coin- 
cidences between  them  and  those  of  the  ancient  and  modern  fatalists.  See  also 
Allen's  Biog.Disc.  361—369. 

t  An  article  to  this  effect  was  published  in  the  Chronicle  of  the  Church  in  Au- 
gust, 1843,  apparently  on  authority,  in  which  it  is  stated,  that  "  Bishop  Brownell 
never  received  any  but  adult  baptism,  and  that  he  was  baptized  in  Christ  Church, 
Schenactedy,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Stebbins,  then  Rector  of  that  Church." 


55 

Second,  he  is  wanting  in.  honesty  and  courtesy  both,  when 
he  represents  the  Bishop  as  teaching  that  the  sinner  "  must 
undergo  no  sudden  radical  change  of  nature  and  principle, 
which  shall  make  him  a  new  man  in  Christ  Jesus."  (p. 
165.)  Indeed  the  language  which  the  reviewer, — in  the 
style  and  after  the  manner  of  the  most  thorough-paced  in- 
fidel,— has  applied  to  a  dying,  godless  wretch,  just  brought 
to  see  his  awful  condition,  was  applied  by  the  Bishop,  so 
far  as  he  uses  any  such  language,  to  the  religious  training 
of  children.  Indeed,  we  know  not,  at  which  to  be  most 
amazed,  the  dishonesty,  or  the  impiety  of  the  representa- 
tion. 

Again,  if  the  reviewer  really  believes,  as  he  pretends, 
that  "  regeneration,"  is  "  the  mere  seminal  power  [principle?^ 
of  a  new  life,^'  (p.  173,)  and  that  infants  have  a  "  right  to 
baptism,  as  regenerate  persons,  before  they  have  the  dis- 
cretion to  ask  it,"  and  that,  because  it  is  presumed  "  they 
are  to  grow  up  as  spiritually  regenerate,"  and  are  "  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  confided  to  its  watch,  and  entitled 
when  they  evince  the  necessary  qualifications  lo  the  Lord's 
Supper,"  and  if  he  "  sees  no  reason  why  a  principle  of  divine 
life  may  not  be  imparted  in  infancy,"  (p.  174,)  we  cannot 
see,  either,  why  he  cannot  understand  the  Bishop,  nor  why 
he  need  find  fault  with  his  positions.  There  must  be  a 
time  in  the  history  of  every  real  Christian,  when  "  the  semi- 
nal principle  of  a  new  life,"  was  implanted  in  the  heart. 
And  if  an  infant  is  to  "  grow  up  a  spiritually  regenerate  per- 
son," the  time,  in  his  case,  must  be  in  infancy.  And  if  in 
infancy,  why  not  in  baptism? 

We  must  now  bring  our  examination  of  the  New-England- 
er  to  a  close,  which  we  cannot  do,  but  with  the  most  fearful 
forebodings  for  the  future  religious  prospects  of  its  friends 
and  supporters.  Its  open  and  avowed  sympathy  with  the 
foulest  heresies, — its  justification  of  the  most  unwarranta- 
ble    schisms, — its   rejection   of    many    of   the    everlasting 


56 

truths  of  the  gospel,— its  glorification  of  man,  its  abounding 
spirit  of  self-righteousness,  and  the  unlawful  measures  in 
religion  consequent  upon  it,  raise  within  our  bosoms,  the 
most  fearful  apprehensions  for  the  future.  May  God  grant, 
that  what  now  seems  inevitable, — their  speedy  apostacy, 
may  be  averted,  and  they  themselves  be  saved,  even 
should  it  be  so  as  "  by  fire." 


O  Almighty  God,  who  has  built  thy  Church  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  Chief  Corner  Stone';  grant  that, 
by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  all  Christians  may  be  so  joined  together  in 
unity  of  the  spirit,  and  in  the  bond  of  peace,  that  they  may  be  an  Holy  Temple 
acceptable  unto  thee.  And,  especially,  give  them  of  the  abundance  of  thy  grace, 
that  with  one  iieart,  they  may  desire  the  prosperity  of  thy  Holy  Apostolic  Churcli, 
and  with  one  mouth,  may  profess  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints.  Defend 
them  from  tlie  sins  of  heresy  and  schism  ;  "  let  not  the  foot  of  pride  come  nigh  to 
hurt  them,  nor  the  hand  of  the  ungodly  to  cast  them  down."  And  grant  that  the 
course  of  this  world  may  be  so  peaceably  ordered  by  tliy  Governance,  that  thy 
Church  may  joyfully  serve  thee  in  all  godly  quietness  ;  that  she  may  walk  in  the 
ways  of  truth  and  peace,  and  at  last  be  numbered  with  thy  Saints  in  glory  ever- 
lasting, through  thy  merits,  O  blessed  Jesus,  thou  gracious  Bishop  and  Shepherd 
of  our  souls,  who  art,  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  one  God,  world  without 
end.     Amen. 


APPENDIX 


The  following  facts,  in  answer  to  the  reviewer,  and  in  reply  also 
to  one  of  his  associates,  occupying  too  much  space  for  a  note,  are 
brought  together  in  an  Appendix. 

INCOMES    OF    THE    ENGLISH    CLERGY. 

The  reviewer  (II.  154)  talks  of  the  Lord  Bishops  with  their 
three  hundred  thousand  pounds  a  year,  and  the  other  clergy  ^\ith 
their  riotous  livings.  What  these  "riotous  livings"  are,  and  how 
they  are  expended,  the  following  facts  will  serve  to  show.  They 
M^ill  also  demonstrate  the  reviewer's  intelligence  and  honesty  in 
this  matter. 

The  Towns  of  England  are  about  -  -  .  400 

The  Village  Parishes  about*       -  -  -  -       10.000 

Of  the  Parishes  of  England  and  Wales,  6,681  have  a  population 

ot  less  than  300  persons  each,  and  1,907  have  less  than  100  each.j 

The  Parishes  in  the  cities  and  larger  towns  amount  to  about  590, 

giving  10,584  benefices,  in  Englarfd  and  Wales,  including  Colle- 


giate  Churches. 

Of  these,  t 

13  are  under 

$45 

1978  from  $900  to 

$1,350 

19  f 

•on: 

$45  to 

90 

1326 

"     1,350  to 

1,800 

39 

>i 

90  to 

1.35 

830 

"     1,800  to 

2,250 

63 

li 

135  to 

180 

954 

"     2,250  to 

3,375 

172 

a 

180  to 

225 

323 

"     3,375  to 

4,500 

307 

ii 

225  to 

270 

124 

"     4,500  to 

6,750 

317 

ti 

270  to 

315 

11 

at 

6,750 

254 

" 

315  to 

360 

10 

" 

7,200 

353 

u 

360  to 

405 

5 

'' 

7,650 

400 

(( 

405  to 

450 

8 

IC 

8,100 

402 

t( 

450  to 

495 

3 

(( 

8,550 

295 

u 

495  to 

540 

9 

u 

9,000 

318 

'' 

540  to 

585 

4 

(C 

11,250 

298 

'' 

585  to 

630 

1 

(C 

13,500 

289 

(1 

630  to 

675 

2 

C( 

15,750 

329 

a 

675  to 

720 

2 

" 

18,000 

290 

i( 

720  to 

765 

24B'prics,  averaofing 

each  22,000 

245 

a 

765  to 

810 

lA'b 

pric,  (Canterbury,)§ 

85,000 

234 

i( 

810  to 

855 

247 

(I 

855  to 

900 

Besides  the  above,  there  are  in  England,  5,232  curates  whose  sal- 
aries are  paid  by  the  beneficed  clergy,  averaging  about  $370  each, 
amounting  to  $1,839,622.  ||  The  whole  revenue  of  all  the  Church- 
es in  En£;land  and  Wales  is  as  follows, 

10,584  Benifices,  -  -  ^  .  '  $14,850,000 

24  Bishoprics  and  2  Archbishoprics,  -  640,000 

*  Essays  on  Church,  45. 

t  Bishop  of  London,  in  Mcllvaine  on  Church  of  England.     N.  Y.  R.  III.  301. 

t  EngUsh  Churchmen,  1841.  The  whole  number  of  benefices  in  the  Scotch 
Presbyterian  Church,  is  about  900,  the  poorest  of  which  is  worth  over  $900  a  year. 
Those  in  the  largest  towns  range  from  f  1,575  to  ,$7,875.  The  average  of  872, 
out  of  900,  is  $1,153,50.  And  yet,  nearly  or  quite  two-thirds  of  the  real  estate 
of  Scotland  which  pays  most  of  this,  is  cwned  by  Churchmen!  Church  Intelli- 
gencer, 1843  ;  Episcopal  Magazine,  1838. 

§  Bishop  Doane,  in  Burlington  Gazette,  1842.         1|  Enolish  Churchmen,  1840. 
8 


58 

The  whole  income  including  the  Cathedral  and  Collegiate  reve- 
nues not  estimated  in  Collegiate  Churches,  is  £3;490,000,  or  $15,- 
705,000.'*  It  should  also  be  remarked  that  the  endowments  of 
Bishoprics  and  Parochial  Benefices,  were  originally  the  gift  of  in- 
dividuals, in  the  first  instance  mostly  small,  but  increased  in  value 
by  the  natural  rise  of  property  in  England,  f 

Of  these  10,584  benefices,  4,984  are  smaller  than  the  smallest 
Scotch  benefice,  that  is,  less  than  $900  a  year.  Of  the  re- 
maining 5.600,  there  are  5,232,  w^hich  pay  salaries  to  curates, 
averaging$370  each,  which  brmgs  about  800  more  benefices  below 
S900.  Consequently,  11,000  out  of  the  16,000  Enghsh  Clergy,  have 
smaller  incomes  than  the  poorest  Presbyterian  minister  of  Scot- 
land,   And  these  are  the  "riotous  livings"  ot  our  reviewer. 

But  there  are  other  facts,  which  go  to  show  how  the  revenues  of 
the  Clergy,  are,  to  a  great  extent,  expended.  The  largest  incomes 
of  the  Bis'hoprics,  are  those  of  Canterburj',  Durham  and  London. 
The  late  Bishop  Harrington,  Bishop  of  Durham  from  1791  to  1826, 
expended  over  £200,000  or  about  §900,000  in  public  charities,  one- 
half  of  which  went  through  his  agent  at  London.  And  his  suc- 
cessor. Bishop  Van  Mildert,  from  1826  to  1836,  expended  annually 
over  $33,000  in  a  similar  manner.  J  Consequently,  the  Bishopric 
of  Durham  has  contributed  in  less  than  half  a  century,  a  million 
and  a  quarter  of  dollars,  to  public  charities,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
public  improvements  in  the  Diocese. 

The  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Rt.  Rev.  William 
Howley,  Bishop  of  London,  from  1813  to  1828,  expended  over 
$200,000  in  public  improvements  at  Lambeth  alone.  § 

Again,  of  the  annual  subscribers  to  five  of  the  principal  Church 
Societies  in  1834,  including  the  Christian  Knowledge,  Propogation 
and  Church  Building  Societies,  there  were  14,152  clergymen,  10,884 
laymen,  and  5,275  females.  1|  And  of  these  clergymen,  5,719  had 
salaries  less  than  S500  a  year.  In  1841,  there\vere  over  14,000 
clergymen,  annual  subscribers  to  the  Pastoral  Aid  Society  alone. 
In  1837  the  income  of  the  additional  curates  fund,  was  834,000,  of 
which,  $6,830  was  given  by  sixteen  Bishops,  and  $16,600  by  one 
hundred  and  sixty-six  clergymen.]!  If  this  is  what  the  reviewer 
means  by  "riotous  living"  he  was  in  the  right  of  it.  O^  seven 
hundred  subscribers  to  the  National  Education  Society,  in  1843, 

*  Padiamentary  Returns,  in  Mcllvaine's  Church  of  England,  271. 
t  This  is  coniesscd,  substantially,  by  the  Edinburgh  Review,  January  1834. 
The  whole  sum  appropriated  to  the  various  religious  denominations  in  England, 
Ireland,  Wales  and  Scotland,  from  1800  to  1842  inclusive,  for  the  aid  and  sup. 
port  of  the  various  religious  denominations,  according  to  the  London  Times,  was 
as  follows, 

Church  of  England  and  Wales,  $11,210,411 

"      Ireland,  7,834,181 

$19,044,892 


Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  $2,349,369 

Protestant  Dissenters,  4,588,211 

Romish  "  1,636,231 


X  Debates  in  House  of  Lords.     Mcllvalne,  172. 

^Bishop  Doane  in  Burlington  Gazette,  1842. 

(I  Charge  of  Rev.  Dr.  Dealtry,  1834.         If  Mcllvaine,  27^. 


$8,563,811 


59 


over  three  hundred  were  Bishops  and  Clergy,  and  of  one  hundred  and 
ten  subscribers  of  $500  each,  eighty-one  were  clergymen.  * 

CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND    AND    MISSIONS. 

Another  topic  alluded  to  by  our  reviewer,  and  especially  urged 
by  one  of  his  co-laborers,  is  the  want  of  any  missionary  arrange- 
ments in  the  Episcopal  Church.  (N.  E.  IL  133—135.)  It  could 
not  be  unknown  to  either,  that  the  Church  of  England  was  occu- 
pied with  both  Foreign  and  Domestic  Missions,  holj  a  century  be- 
fore any  other  Protestant  denomination.  The  success  of  these 
efforts  at  present,  as  compared  with  those  of  the  dissenters,  may 
be  seen  from  the  following  tables. 

In  1840,  the  number  of  Protestant  Missionary  Societies  in  the 
world,  with  their  total  income,  was  estimated  as  follows,! 

Societies.  Income. 

British,  614  $2,115,007 

Continental,  178  113,000 

American,  252  393,000 

The  whole  amount  contributed  by  the  British  Societies  in  the 
year  ending  1841,  was  not  far  from  84,000,000;  contributed  mainly 
by  the  following  Societies.  J  They  are  of  three  classes:  Societies 
sustained  entirely  by  Churchmen;  Societies  sustained  entirely  by 
Dissenters,  and  Societies  sustained  by  both.  Of  this  latter  class, 
it  has  been  ascertained  by  examination,  that  Churchmen  contri- 
bute more  than  half.  § 


Church  Societies,  1840—1, 


Church  Miss. 

$443,638 

Prop.  Gosp.  F.  P, 

445,007 

Chr.  Knowledge, 

435,325 

Pastoral  Aid, 

95,379 

Clerical  Aid, 

37,917 

Col.  Miss. 

8,428 

Prayer  B.  and  Homily, 

13,971 

Tract, 

2,077 

Trinitarian  Bible, 

12,885 

National  Education, 

91.816 

Reformation, 

8,462 

Foreign  Aid, 

6,197 

Jews, 

118.382 

London  Hibernian, 

45,677 

Eastern  Fem,  Ed. 

8,098 

11,773,259 


Mixed  Societies,  1840—1. 
Brit,  and  For.  Bible,        $491,413 
Religious  Tract,  280,429 

London  Miss.  355,555 

Naval  and  Military  Bib.  16,062 
Merchant's  Seamen's  Bib.  3^37 
B.  and  F.  Anti-Slavery,  19^550 
B.  andF.  School,  29.816 

B.  and  F.  Sailors,  12^850 

B.  and  F.  Temperance,  2,693 
New  Temperance,  15,959 

Brit,  for  Sup.  Intemp.  3,971 

Peace,  7.6OO 

Lord's  day  Obs.  4,140 

London  City  Miss.  23,390 

District  Visiting,  2,229 

Christian  Instruction,  6,172 

London  Irish,  20,015 

Sunday  School  Union,  52,465 
Ladies  Negro  Child.  Ed.  7,883 
Infant  School,  9,241 


,365,160 


*  Church  Intelliofcnccr.  During  the  last  ten  years  the  London  Church  Building 
Society  has  expended  over  $1,000,000,  and  forty-two  new  Churches  have  been 
erected  in  that  Diocese.         t  Miss.  Herald,  1^41. 

i  Miss.  Her.  18t2  ;  Lond.  Miss.  Reg.  1841. 

§  Mcllvaine's  Church  of  Eng.  1837. 


60 


Church  Societies,  1840—1. 
Church  Societies,         $1,773,259 
Half-Mixed  Societies,       682,580 
Am.  Episcopal,*  67,594 

Moravian,*  81,715 


$2,605,148 


Dissenters  Societies,  1840—1. 

Half-Mixed  Society,  $682,580 

Wesleyan  Miss.  437,384 

Baptist  Miss,  140,296 

Edinburgh  Bible,  14,105 

Scottish  Miss.  13,317 

Church  of  Scot.  Miss.  40,329 
Church  Scotland  Jews,        17.411 

Am.  Dissenters,*  715,274 

Continental    "    near,  200,000 


82.258,696 

Balance  of  Episcopal  Church  over  all  the  rest  of  Protestant 
Christendom,  $346,452  !  And  yet  not  more  than  one-Jiflh  of  the 
Protestants  are  Episcopal.  During  the  year  ending  1S43,  the 
whole  sum  contributed  by  the  British  Societies,  is  estimated  by 
their  journals,  at  $4,659,200.     We  give  a  feu'  specimens. 

1841.  1843. 

Gh«.s<?h  Missionary  Society,  $443,638  $511,111 

Propagation  Society,  445,007  512,127 

Clerical  Aid  Society,  37,917  100,000 

Increase  of  three  Societies  in  two  years,  $196,676. 
To  show  the  influence  of  circumstances  on  the  minds  of 
English  Churchmen,  we  give  the  following  facts.  The  Church 
Missionary  Society,  which  was  formed  in  1799,  has  had  several 
remarkable  epochs  in  the  increase  of  its  funds.  In  the  14th  year 
of  its  existence,  1813,  India  was  thrown  open  to  missionaries  by 
the  passage  of  the  India  bill,  and  the  funds  of  the  Society  went 
up  from  $16,000  to  $52,650.  In  the  27th  year,  1826,  the  West  In- 
dies vv'ere  thrown  open  by  the  Emancipation  bill,  and  the  funds 
rose  from  about  $204,750  to  nearly  $235,000.  The  30th  year,  1638, 
was  remarkable  for  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at  Krishnaghur, 
some  forty  or  fifty  heathen  villages  renouncing  heatlienism,  and 
the  funds  went  up  from  $347,000  to  404,700.*  And  in  the  44th 
year,  1843,  China  was  opened  to  missions,  and  the  funds  rose  to 
$511,111.1  These  are  facts  which  speak  for  thenselves,  and  we 
commend  them  to  the  attention  of  the  reviewer  and  his  associates. 
A  similar  increase  has  occured  in  the  funds  of  some  other  Soci- 
eties. Thus,  in  1839,  there  were  only  201  Parochial  Associations 
in  aid  of  the  Society  for  propogating  the  Gospel;  in  1843,  there 
were  870,  being  an  increase  of  660  in  four  years.  And  the  Mis- 
sionaries have  increased  in  six  years,  from  1837  to  1843,  from  177 
to  332,  being  an  increase  of  205. 

*  S.  S.  Jour.  1839.     TJie  contributions  in  1840,  were  about  the  same. 
+  Speech  of  the  Rev.  J.  Yenn,  at  C.  M.  Soc.  May  3d,  1843.     Two  individaale,- 
one  £t  clergymen,  j^ave  over  $60,000,  for  the  China  Mission. 


[copy  right  secured.] 


tSalanc- 
Clinsti 

Pin' 


PHOTOMOUNT 
PAMPHLET  BINDER 


Manu/acluted  by 

[  ©AYLORD  BROS.  Iik. 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Stockton,  Calif. 


■B*.f 


,i,n.iijij  jtmrf, 


BX5935.N53 

New-Englandism  not  the  religion  of  the 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


012  00050  8624 


.'1 


<;* 


ywMi* 


s 

\ 


